APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, reconsideration of his request that his records be corrected to (1) reflect his retirement at the highest pay grade held; (2) that all pay and allowances withheld from the time of his retirement to present be reimbursed; (3) that the excessive fine improperly imposed as a result of his general court-martial (GCM) be rescinded; (4) that money paid toward his fine be refunded, in full; and, (5) that his GCM be expunged from his records.  The applicant further points out that a promulgation order was not accomplished; that this Board search for evidence which was not available to him; that the Article 32 investigation filed in his GCM is not a verbatim record of what transpired during the arraignment or the GCM; that his defense counsel acted improperly; and, that his GCM was conducted to prevent him from “blowing the whistle” concerning the illegal and improper administration of the urinalysis program.  The applicant provided no documentary evidence of his allegations.

APPLICANT STATES:  (1) That he was advised by his military defense counsel (MDC) that he had 7 years to file a claim with this Board, therefore, the denial of his action is erroneous; (2) that Army regulations state that a service member is to be retired at the highest grade held, even after a reduction; (3) that he notified his supervisors that the UA (sic) program was being incorrectly administered;  (4) that he began the process of “blowing the whistle”;   (5) that, because the Inspector General indicated “something wasn’t quite right about the bringing of charges”, he was transferred to an unknown destination; (6) that the Chief of Staff was also reassigned; (7) that his civilian counsel quit, because they “got the word”; (8) that the judge and prosecution had two ex-parte communications; (9) that the MDC was moved to Fort Carson, Colorado two weeks after the trial; (10) that the MDC refused to subpoena a man from Mississippi; (11) that the MDC refused to subpoena a local resident of Denver; (12) that the judge and prosecutor were overheard discussing appropriate punishment; (13) that at least two jurors kept falling asleep during plaintiff’s testimony; (14) that the MDC refused to assist in filing appeals; (15) that he could not afford civilian counsel; and, (16) that the person in charge of investigating the appeal at the Army level in Washington, D.C. was a former prosecutor from Fort Carson, who may have still had friends and colleagues at her former assignment.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which are summarized in a memorandum presented before this Board on 5 March 1997 (COPY ATTACHED).

Army Regulation 15-185, Army Board For Correction Of Military Records, indicates, in pertinent part, that “A claimant, his/her heir, or legal representative must file the application for correction of a record within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice”.

Army Regulation 600-200, Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel, indicates, in pertinent part, that (1) “Retirement will be in the regular or reserve grade the soldier holds on the date of retirement”; (2) “Retired soldiers who have less than 30 years of active service are entitled, when their active service plus service on the retired list total 30 years, to be advanced on the retired list to the highest grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily”; ”When these soldiers complete 30 years of service, their military personnel records are reviewed to determine whether service in the higher grade was satisfactory”; and, ”Grade determinations for purposes of advancement on the retired list are made by the Army Grade Determination Review Board, on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, per AR 15-80”.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant has provided no documentary evidence nor is their any in the Official Military Personnel File or Record of Trial.
3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis upon which to grant the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The original decision by this Board is reaffirmed.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director