Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8300265
Original file (8300265.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records by upgrading his discharge.

APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was harassed by other service men, abused, knocked down and shoved around. Further, he was never given credit for his work or the proper training, compassion or understanding . He has tried to help people since his discharge and his friends will vouch for his character.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION : Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum of consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 31 August 1983 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant submits two letters in support of his contention that post service factors warrant change of his discharge. An undated letter from a minister who has known the applicant for ten years states he is honest and fair and sincerely cares. In a second undated letter the writer specifies he has known the applicant for two and a half years and he is of honorable character and has earned his respect.

The applicant submits no evidence regarding his contentions of mistreatment.

Army Regulation 615-368, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. Unfitness included, in addition to misconduct and repeated petty offenses, chronic alcoholism, habitual shirking, and repeated venereal infections. Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, rehabilitation was unsuccessful, impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier. When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

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. There is no evidence of record that the applicant was harassed by other service men, abused, knocked down, shoved around. Also, nothing in the record supports allegations that he was not given any credit for his work, not given the proper training, compassion or understanding

2. The applicant’s contentions of his post service accomplishments and good character are not so exceptionally meritorious as to warrant an upgrade of his discharge nor do these factors outweigh the severity of the offenses which characterized his discharge.

3. Prior to reaching the determination that it was not in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file, the Board looked at the entire file. It was only after all other aspects had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of the records that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to submit the application within the 3 year time limit. The Board has never denied an application simply because it was not submitted within the required time.

4. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION : The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.


BOARD VOTE :

________ ________ ________ GRANT

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                                                      Loren G. Harrell
                                                      Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000079C070208

    Original file (20040000079C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He states that one of the statements was the “second statement” rendered by one of the enlisted women. She indicated that he inspected her room and then started to make small talk and asked her what she had on under the sheet and then began asking more personal questions. The evidence suggests that the investigation was conducted appropriately, that the investigating officer interviewed appropriate individuals, despite the applicant’s argument to the contrary, and that his findings and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065653C070421

    Original file (2001065653C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 of probable material error or injustice. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711240

    Original file (9711240.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES : That his brother and another soldier (now deceased) were members of a bazooka team during an action in the vicinity of the Remagen Bridge in Germany, for which the other soldier was awarded the Silver Star. The Board believes that this man is the soldier who was awarded the Silver Star, and that he acted alone. The Board notes, still and all, that the one soldier was awarded the Silver Star for this action, that the regimental commander corresponded twice with the widow...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Feb 05 13_50_44 CST 2001

    My defense counsel did not question During the (ADB) I was upset that the (ADB) any witness and myself doing (sic) the (ADB) about (0’s) behavior. Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) make this guarantee applicable to an ADB respondent by stating that such an individual is entitled to “qualified counsel,” and defining that term as “counsel qualified under Article 27(b) of the UCMJ.” Articles 3640200.7 and 3620200.lv of the United States v. Marshall, 45 Strickland, at 687. Article...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 1998-087appendices

    Original file (1998-087appendices.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant! About 11:00 p.m., [the applicant and J.M.] [The applicant and J.M.]

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00841

    Original file (ND02-00841.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00841 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020529, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I was told by navy legal office on Guam that an admin board was to be pick at random, but the Capt pick the board himself, I was also told that one member of my board was suppose to be from another command so as to be impartial this was not done everyone on my board was from my command. The possibility that one of his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006794

    Original file (20140006794.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 1 August 1990, he was advised by his unit commander that action was being initiated to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, by reason of a definite pattern of misconduct. The attached statement of his rights, which he acknowledged receiving on 2 August 1990, stated he had the right to: * consult with legal counsel * submit a request...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006171

    Original file (20070006171.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states that he filed an Article 138 against LTC S______ on 15 February 2006 which has never been concluded. On 5 December 2005, the garrison commander appointed an IO pursuant to AR 15-6 to conduct an informal investigation into allegations of misconduct regarding the applicant; specifically, to determine whether the applicant sexually harassed and/or acted inappropriately towards female Soldiers in the 3d ACR.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150009778

    Original file (20150009778.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The IO stated: a. (3) Counsel states that SPC R______, SSG S______ A________, SSG R___, SSG A______, and SGT A____, were all interviewed and none of them saw anything improper going on during the combatives training. g. SSG A________ R___, who states that he witnessed the applicant tell both SSG T_____ and SGT W______ that they looked professional on civilian clothes day.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004969C071029

    Original file (20070004969C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides active duty special work (ADSW) orders, dated 29 September 2001; his discharge packet; his notification of eligibility for retired pay at age 60 (his 20-year letter); a National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) and a corrected NGB Form 22; a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States) with related letters from the Army Review Boards Agency; discharge orders, dated 8...