Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8604097
Original file (8604097.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records by upgrading his undesirable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that since the last denial by the Board to upgrade his discharge his post service has changed and demonstrates he has been a good citizen and that his discharge should be upgraded.

 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 21 October 1987 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant submits several documents in support of his contention that post service factors warrant change of his discharge.

In support of his post service argument he submits the following:

 a. a resume that highlights his qualifications, professional experiences, and education
 b. a copy of a Bachelor of Arts degree in the applicants name dated 1996
c. two certificates of appointment pertaining to the applicant as a member of the statewide advisory council for the department for the blind
d. one letter of appreciation and one letter of congratulations from the Governor of Kentucky
e. certificate of appreciation from the Blind Advisory Council
f. a letter of appreciation from the commissioner of the Department for the Blind in the state of Kentucky
g. a letter from the rehabilitation counselor and the independent living specialist in Kentucky
h. a letter from a friend thanking the applicant for the parent resource center
i. an appreciation letter from a Parent Resource Center attendee
j. an appreciation letter from the executive director of the Mountain Comprehensive care center
k. a letter from a long time friend who states the applicants advocacy work has opened many doors for children
Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness. Separation action was to be taken when the commander determined that the best interest of the service would be served by eliminating the individual concerned and: reasonable attempts to rehabilitate or develop the individual to be a satisfactory soldier were unlikely to succeed; or rehabilitation was impracticable, such as in cases of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civil authorities and an established pattern of shirking. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

The previous Board’s MOC describes from the applicant’s records three occasions of AWOL in which the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial on all three occasions. The applicant was discharged with 342 days time lost.

 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. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

2. The applicant’s request for reconsideration based on his accomplishments and sincerity to be a productive citizen are acknowledged by the Board. These factors 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 | CY1980-1989 | 8300265

    Original file (8300265.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant submits no evidence regarding his contentions of mistreatment. 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. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710817A

    Original file (9710817A.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS : The applicant requests a reconsideration of his previous application to upgrade his discharge. 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. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066136C070421

    Original file (2001066136C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous application to correct his military records by upgrading his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. He was discharged from the Army in 1962 and remained an alcoholic until 1978. It was only after he stopped drinking for several years that he felt he could ask for his records to be changed.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000407

    Original file (20150000407.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    b. the FSM was a member of Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade and was killed in action in the Republic of Vietnam on 19 November 1967. c. he would like the FSM's DA Form 52-2 (Report of Casualty) corrected by changing the entry stating "Home of Record Middletown, Rhode Island" to read "Home of Record Brunswick, Maine." i. when the traveling Vietnam Wall came to Brunswick and the family went to view it, the FSM's name was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8706972

    Original file (8706972.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS : Reconsideration of his request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to general under honorable conditions. 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 14 December 1988 (COPY ATTACHED).The applicant, in effect, cites as a basis to upgrade his discharge, that he served favorably during his first...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001384

    Original file (20080001384.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests through her Member of Congress (MOC), in effect, reconsideration of her request that the records of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he applied for a Reserve Components Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) annuity for her and to show she is entitled to receive a RCSBP annuity. The evidence in this case also shows the applicant applied for reconsideration of her originally denied request for the correction of the FSM's records to show...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8809281

    Original file (8809281.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He submits 1994 medical reports and evaluations from the Northwest Georgia Regional Hospital describing his alcohol and drug addictions and other mental and emotional problems. He was being processed for separation under conditions that could have led to discharge under other than honorable conditions and was not eligible for physical disability processing. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9307187

    Original file (9307187.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel concurs in the applicant’s presentation and requests that all reasonable doubt be resolved in the applicant’s favor. : 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. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000348C070205

    Original file (20060000348C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge to honorable, and by changing the reason for his discharge, his Reentry (RE) Code, and his Separation Designator Number (SPN) on his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge). Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness. He received the appropriate RE code associated with his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8500312

    Original file (8500312.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES : In effect that post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prevented him from following orders. The applicant’s recent adjustments to civilian life and his parents’ concerns are noted but these matters are not so exemplary nor exceptional as to demonstrate an injustice in the discharge. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.