ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608337C070209
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant was inducted on 14 August 1961 and served until 13 August 1962 when he was honorably discharged and transferred to the USAR. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608343C070209
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. The commander recommended immediate discharge for the civil conviction and the applicant received an undesirable discharge on 30 November 1967. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608346C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to reflect that he was awarded the Cambodian Campaign Service Medal, the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) and the Expert Rifle Badge. There are no documents in his military personnel file to show that he was awarded the BSM or an Expert Badge with rifle bar. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he qualified as an expert with the rifle and was awarded an Expert Badge with rifle bar.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608355C070209
The applicant requests that he either be reinstated on active duty or that he be given an early retirement. The applicant was selected for a bar to reenlistment under the QMP because of his LOR. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected: a. by showing that the individual concerned successfully appealed his QMP bar to reenlistment and the bar was lifted; b. by removing all documentation from his records pertaining to his QMP bar; c. by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608358C070209
The separation authority waived further rehabilitation, approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant receive an undesirable discharge. On 11 December 1979 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge. However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608359C070209
Paragraph 6a (4) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members who had established a pattern for shirking were subject to separation for unfitness and a discharge UOTHC was normally considered appropriate. On 11 July 1978, the ADRB, as required by Public Law 95-126, re-reviewed the previous upgrading of the applicants discharge. As a result of that review the board determined that the applicant did not qualify for upgrading under uniform standards for discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608361C070209
She states that she had requested to be transferred to the USAR Control Group when she completed her initial active duty for training. Army Regulation 135-91, paragraph 4-15, specifies that a reservist who relocates beyond reasonable commuting distance to his or her unit, who has not completed 24 months of active duty, and who cannot be assigned to a unit in the new location, will be transferred to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) CONCLUSIONS: 1. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608365C070209
The applicant requests that his DD Form 214, Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect that he was separated in pay grade E-4. However, a search of morning reports for his unit of assignment prior to discharge disclosed that on 26 December 1962 he was promoted to pay grade E-4 per paragraph 1, of order number 33. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was promoted to pay grade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608370C070209
The applicant requests correction of his military records to show that he was awarded the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star Medal (BSM), the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry and the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM). There is, however, no documentation in the record to show that he was recommended for or awarded the BSM. In view of the foregoing, the applicants records should be corrected as recommended below.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608374C070209
The applicant requests correction of his military record to reflect that he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) for service during Operation Desert Storm. The available evidence indicates that the BSM was approved 1 day prior to his separation from the service which is probably the reason why it was not reflected on his DD Form 214. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the individual concerned was awarded the BSM...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608376C070209
Thereafter, he was discharged without any benefits for his injuries, and was not even issued a DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, for the period he was on active duty. The applicants counsel contends that the applicant was injured in line of duty while he was on active duty in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm, that his injuries were of such severity as to warrant consideration by a medical evaluation board (MEB), that the military physicians treating...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608379C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his DD Form 214, Report of Separation, be corrected to show that he was awarded the Purple Heart. Despite the Purple Heart Certificate included with his application, there is no other evidence in the available records to substantiate that he was wounded as a result of hostile action or awarded a Purple Heart. Additionally, in the absence of corroborating facts elsewhere in the record that he was awarded a Purple Heart, the Purple Heart Certificate by-itself does...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608382C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his DD Form 214, Report of Separation, be corrected to show that he was awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) for wounds received in Vietnam. Army Regulation 600-8-22, Military Awards, provides in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained as the result of hostile action. After examining the available records, there is no evidence that the applicant was recommended for or awarded the BSM, or that a recommendation for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608393C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be promoted on the retired list to the pay grade of E-9. It stated, in pertinent part, that eligibility for promotion consideration to the pay grades of E-7 through E-9 was based on the date of rank and that in order to be eligible for inclusion in the zone of consideration, the individual concerned must have been serving on active duty in an enlisted status on the convening date of the board and must not have had an approved retirement before the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608396C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his DD Form 214, Report of Separation, be corrected to show that he was awarded the Purple Heart. Despite the Purple Heart Certificate included with his application, there is no other evidence in the available records to substantiate that he was wounded or injured as a result of hostile action or otherwise entitled to the Purple Heart. Additionally, in the absence of substantiating evidence elsewhere in the record that he was awarded a Purple Heart, the Purple...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608408C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge because he completed his alternate service under a Presidential clemency program. PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 6 March 1978.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608424C070209
His DD Form 214 shows that he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal with device (1960), and the Army Commendation Medal. The applicant participated in three campaigns in Vietnam and is entitled to the Vietnam Service Medal with three bronze service stars. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicants records as recommended below.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608428C070209
The applicant states that the contested OER is administratively inaccurate because it contains the comment [Applicant] is being released from active duty due to a second time non-selection for major in part Ve, and because it was not referred to her as an adverse report based on the SR having placed her in the fifth block of part VIIa, under potential evaluation. Paragraph 4-16b(5)a states, in effect, that the rated officers evaluation of potential by the SR is to be made by comparing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608429C070209
Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage in those cases where the retiree had elected spouse coverage at retirement The law stipulated that the retiree had to request the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to change the SBP participation from spouse to former spouse. The SBP Board recommended approval of the applicants request to change his SBP election from spouse to former spouse retroactive to date of divorce, 11 July 1994. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608430C070209
Chapter 13 of the regulation states that the Government may impose a finding of pecuniary liability whenever negligence or willful misconduct is found to be the proximate cause of any loss, damage, or destruction of Government property. It found the investigation to contain inconsistencies in the sworn statements, which clearly show that the applicants conduct was not the proximate cause of the loss of government property and that there does not exist sufficient documentation to support a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608449C070209
On 28 August 1979, the applicant was discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a discharge UOTHC. On 2 August 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement 2.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608460C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show that he was retired for a physical disability, rated at 30 percent. The PEB recommended his separation, with a combined disability rating of 20 percent. On 11 January 1993, a VA Rating Decision awarded the applicant a combined service-connected disability rating of 30 percent, effective 8 July 1992, for (1) right foot condition, 10 percent; (2) right knee condition, 10 percent; (3) back condition, 10 percent; and, (4) left knee...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608465C070209
On 20 July 1959 the applicant was tried by general court-martial for four specifications of violation of Article 123 (two specifications of forgery and two specifications of uttering bad checks). He pleaded and was found guilty of all charges and specifications and was sentenced to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge, to forfeit $55.00 a month for 24 months, to be confined at hard labor for 24 months, and to be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. DISCUSSION:...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608466C070209
The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608474C070209
The applicant states he had [his] day in the civilian court, and the judge found [him] not guilty of the DUI charge because there was insufficient evidence. He states the judge dropped the DUI charge for insufficient evidence after he informed him that he had passed three field sobriety tests. The applicant was issued a LOR on 13 June 1995 which indicated he refused to complete a lawfully requested breathalyzer test. Letters of reprimand may be filed in a soldier's OMPF only upon the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608475C070209
This placed the applicant below the COM on the SRs profile. Consequently, by maintaining his profile in the manner in which he did, he could not render a rating that would accurately portray a rated officers demonstrated performance and potential any higher than COM. Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct the contested OER by deleting the SR profile from the contested OER.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608480C070209
However, because the applicant reenlisted for 2 years instead of 3 years, he did not meet the minimum requirement of reenlisting for a minimum of 3 years to qualify for payment of the SRB. Had the applicant been informed that he would not have been eligible to qualify for an SRB by reenlisting for only 2 years, he could have requested an exception to the RCP to be reenlisted for a period of 3 years so as to qualify for payment of the SRB. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608483C070209
He goes on to state that MOS 54B offered an SRB at the time and that he should be entitled to receive it. The applicant was improperly advised that he could reenlist for Army service school training in MOS 91B, when, by virtue of his promotable status, he was ineligible for such an option. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending the 4 April 1995 reenlistment contract of the individual concerned to reflect that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608494C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his military records by adding $3,000 to the existing ISP (incentive special pay) agreement for a total annual amount of $6,000. The Department of Defense Military Pay and Entitlements manual provides that medical officers may be authorized ISP under certain criteria. The evidence of record shows that the applicant signed a 4-year MSP agreement beginning on 15 June 1993 with the linked ISP rate at that time was $3,000.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608497C070209
The commander will confine the inquiry to matters relating to the clarity of the report, the facts contained in the report, the compliance of the report with the regulation, and the conduct of the rated NCO and rating officials. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the this requirement. Also, by regulation, a Commanders Inquiry will be made by a commander in the chain of command above the designated rating official(s) involved in the allegations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608504C070209
Based upon this information, the Finance Office determined that, in addition to receiving excessive BAQ payments, the applicant was providing less than the full amount of BAQ received in the support of his first child. Although properly applied, the DoDFMR ignores the fact that the applicant was not responsible for the overpayment of BAQ. BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608509C070209
The applicant requests that his records be corrected so as to allow him to cash in his accrued leave in conjunction with his last reenlistment. Additionally, he indicated on his Request for Regular Army Reenlistment or Extension (DA Form 3340-R) that he desired to cash in his accrued leave. Consequently, it would be appropriate in this case to void the 18 May 1994 extension for a period of 5 months so as to allow the applicant to cash in his accrued leave based on his 15 June 1995...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608515C070209
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show that he reenlisted on 22 November 1994 for a period of 3 years instead of 2 years and that he be authorized repayment of $326.94 that was recouped from his pay as an unearned enlistment bonus. It opined, in effect, that subsequent to the applicants reenlistment, the applicable regulation was changed to allow soldiers serving in the pay grade of E-4 who enlisted for a period of 6 years to reenlist for a period of 3 years...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608566C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of an officer evaluation report (OER) covering the period 29 May 1993 through 28 May 1994 by removing remarks by the rater in part Ve and remarks by the senior rater (SR) in part VIIb and by granting her promotion reconsideration to the rank of lieutenant colonel. Paragraph 4-16b(5)a states, in effect, that the rated officers evaluation of potential by the SR is to be made by comparing the rated officers potential with all other officers of the same grade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608569C070209
The record indicates that the applicant was counseled about his association with the female SSG on at least three other occasions on 3 June 1991, 18 August 1991 [which also served as a counseling for the contested NCOER], and on 9 September 1991. The ESRB contacted the rater, senior rater, and reviewer of the contested report. The senior rater stated that he assumed command of the detachment in December 1990 and published a new rating scheme immediately thereafter.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608570C070209
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of her military records by reinstating 10 days of leave that she lost at the end of Fiscal Year 1994. Paragraph 3-3 provides, in effect, that the Commander, PERSCOM, is the approval authority for requests for special leave accrual for soldiers who are prevented from using leave through the end of the Fiscal Year because of deployment. The applicant could have carried over 10 days of leave as authorized special leave if Departmental personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608580C070209
On 3 April 1997, a member of the staff of the Board spoke with the applicant and requested copies of the sworn affidavits supporting her allegation. In lieu of the requested affidavits, she furnished a newspaper article, dated 5 days after her request was received at the Board and a copy of her prior denial of release from active duty. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608586C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, correction of his military records by showing on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that his rank was specialist four, and that his pay grade was E-4. There is no evidence in the available records that the applicant was advanced to a higher grade after his reduction to pay grade E-2 on 26 August 1993. The applicant nor counsel has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608587C070209
Although he waited until that date, 1 August 1992, he was then informed that he would have to officially request that the appropriate changes be noted in the personnel service record in order to receive a corrected DD Form 214. A lst Endorsement, dated 27 July 1992, from the U.S. Army Transition Point, Fort Jackson, to the applicant advised him that the effective date of his discharge was 27 July 1992; that he was enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) immediately after being discharged...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608594C070209
After hearing all evidence, the board voted to separate the applicant with a UD. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 27 January 1958.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608600C070209
Army Regulation 600-43, in effect at the time of the applicants discharge and currently in effect, provides that, when discharged because of conscientious objection, Army Regulation 600-43 will be entered as the separation authority and RE-4 will be entered as the reentry code on the applicants DD Form 214. Effective 2 October 1989, the regulation was changed indicating that Army Regulation 601-210 determines RE and regulates the assignment of the RE code; that reentry codes are not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608601C070209
The PEB recommended that she be released from active duty and placed on the TDRL rated 100 percent disabled. The PEB responded to her rebuttal, stating that her last physical examination supported the finding of her initial PEB that her back condition was not unfitting for her to perform her duties as a legal clerk at the time of her placement on the TDRL, and that a subsequent PEB can only rate a soldier assigned to the TDRL for conditions which were determined to be physically unfitting...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608613C070209
On 16 April 1981, the appropriate authority approved his request, reduced the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. On 17 April 1981, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608621C070209
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. On that report of examination he himself wrote Excellent condition in item 8, Statement of examinees present health and medications currently used. That recommendation was then approved by the appropriate authority and the applicant was given a General Discharge Certificate on 22 March 1984 in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608622C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the former service members (FSM) dishonorable discharge be upgraded. He was dishonorably discharged pursuant to the sentence of a general court-martial on 16 December 1946. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608623C070209
The applicant requests: that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 19 November 1993, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his more than 7 1/2 years of good service, it would be unjust to consider his honorable discharge of 8 May...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608624C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge for unsatisfactory performance be corrected to a medical retirement. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military personnel and medical records show: He enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 January 1986, was awarded the military occupational specialty of Bradley Fighting Vehicle System Mechanic Recovery Operations, served continuously, and was promoted to pay grade E-5. On 17 May 1994 the applicants commander notified him that he was recommending his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608634C070209
The applicant submitted a request for a commanders inquiry of the OER to his major USAR commander. However, a substantial portion of the inquiry report, to include the recommendations and the action taken by the appointing authority, could not be located. While only an incomplete copy of the OE inquiry into his case can be located (and no evidence of the IG inquiry can be found), it still appears that his allegation of unfair treatment in the TPU have been substantiated through the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608637C070209
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his DA Imposed Bar to Reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) be reconsidered. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 29 August 1978 he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608641C070209
On the same day, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a (UD). Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. ...