CASE NUMBER
Case heard at Washington, D.C.
Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.
550 C STREET
RANDOLPH A
AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00
(EF-V2)
Previous edition will be used
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053717C070420
the effective dates granted to those earlier cases. 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: Approval of the applicant’s request for an adjustment of his effective date of promotion, and back pay based on actions taken in other similar cases, is not appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061164C070421
Based on this case, the Board held that as a matter of equity it would be in the interest of justice to grant the same relief to two later applicants. In 1999, the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U. S. Army agreed to settle a lawsuit by two JAGC lieutenant colonels who claimed that the affirmative action portion of instructions used by the colonel’s promotion board violated their equal protection and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003243C070208
The applicant provides: a. A complete copy of the Board's original Record of Proceedings in his case, including his application and all supporting documents. In this case, the Board expunged the drunk driving GOMOR issued to a Soldier after he was found not guilty in a court of law because he successfully challenged the reliability of the results of his blood-alcohol content (BAC) test and the court invalidated the results.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-1991-02143A-3
Public Law Number 107-107, Section 503(b) (28 Dec 01) allows a federal court to “review the action of a Special Selection Board… or an action of the secretary of the military department concerned on the report of such a board” and to “set aside” such actions if the court finds it was, inter alia, “arbitrary and capricious” or not “based on substantial evidence.” In Homer v. Roche, one of the two cases cited by applicant’s counsel, the court referred to this amendment of Section 628 of Title...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1991-02143A-3
Public Law Number 107-107, Section 503(b) (28 Dec 01) allows a federal court to “review the action of a Special Selection Board… or an action of the secretary of the military department concerned on the report of such a board” and to “set aside” such actions if the court finds it was, inter alia, “arbitrary and capricious” or not “based on substantial evidence.” In Homer v. Roche, one of the two cases cited by applicant’s counsel, the court referred to this amendment of Section 628 of Title...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015593
If documentation had been requested, he would have known that his daughter was not an eligible beneficiary and by law he would not have been able to participate in the RCSBP. It requires courts to "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions" that are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." The Board concluded: * the member's military service records did not contain evidence of marital status (e.g., divorce decree)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020923
Counsel requests that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) determine whether the: (1) Army published false or inaccurate facts about the applicant and whether privileges were taken on 7 January 2009, (2) applicant met medical standards of care in Cases 1 through 5, (3) applicant was counseled so as to have a chance to improve before privileges were suspended, (4) investigation constituted a thorough, fair, honest, and unbiased review of matters and whether the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070011109
The applicant has provided no evidence to substantiate what the FSM's intent was at the time he completed the DD Form 1883. The FSM's DD Form 1883 shows that he made the election for children only with the understanding that if he did not chose option B or C in section II of item 9c and he died before age 60, his beneficiary would not receive benefits under Public Law 95-397. None of the factual scenarios in the four cases are close enough to the facts in the applicant's case to require a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000240
The PDBR SRP conducted a comprehensive review of the applicants submissions and records for evidence of inappropriate changes in the diagnosis of a MH condition during processing through the military disability system. The SRP reviewed the records for evidence of inappropriate changes in diagnosis of the MH condition during processing through the Disability Evaluation System (DES). The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055082C070420
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he should have been granted a waiver to retire in pay grade O-6 because a United States Military Academy (USMA) classmate was granted such a waiver. On 8 November 1998, after considering all of the evidence and arguments this Board determined that the applicant had not provided sufficient justification for granting any relief or excusing the failure to timely file and denied the request for a waiver of time in grade for retirement. request is received...