Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9008849
Original file (9008849.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the Board reverse its previous action which denied his application for failure to timely apply, and consider the merits of the application. The applicant contends, in effect, that the Giles v. Secretary of the Army (Civil Action 77-0904), 27 November 1979, applies to him. In an unsigned separate application, the applicant stated that he had a severe drug problem that developed while he was over in Vietnam serving his tour of duty; that he could not receive any assistance regarding being provided with any treatment for his drug problem; that the incident happened during the 1960’s when the Government was not very sensitive towards drugs; and that the punishment was too severe for the charges.

PURPOSE : To determine if the new information and/or contentions now submitted by the applicant, when added to the information already available, contains sufficient justification to conclude that the application was filed within the time required, or if not, whether it could be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file his original application which had been denied by the Board.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION : In support of the current request, the applicant has submitted the new contention that the Giles v. Secretary of the Army (Civil Action
77-0904) applied to him.

The Order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Giles v. Secretary of the Army (Civil Action
77-0904), 27 November 1979, defined the class as ” . . . consisting of those former service members of the U.S. Army who presently possess less than honorable administrative discharges which were characterized as less than honorable in an administrative proceeding in which the Army introduced evidence developed by or as a direct or indirect result of compelled urinalysis testing for the purpose of identifying
drug abusers (either for purposes of entry into a treatment program or to monitor progress during rehabilitation or followup) . . .”

There is no evidence in the applicant’s available medical records that he was ever treated for drug abuse or drug addiction or that he had compelled urinalysis testing for the purpose of identifying drug abusers.

The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was discharged on 28 April 1971 as a result of a conviction by a special court-martial, with a bad conduct discharge. Therefore, the provisions of the Giles v. Secretary of the Army (Civil Action 77-0904) do not apply to him.

The Manual for Courts-Martial, at the Table of Maximum Punishments, then in effect, provided for violating or failing to obey any lawful general order or regulation, the maximum punishment was a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for 2 years. For possessing or using with intent to defraud or deceive a false or unauthorized military pass, permit, discharge certificate, or identification card, the maximum punishment was a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for 3 years.

DISCUSSION : After considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant with the current request, together with the previously available evidence of record,, and the applicable law and regulations, the Board again concludes that the applicant has not presented, nor do the records contain, sufficient justification to establish that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law.

DETERMINATION : The original determination made by the Board in this case is reaffirmed.

BOARD VOTE:

EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE

GRANT FORMAL HEARING

CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION




                  Karl F. Schneider
                  Acting Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003805

    Original file (20140003805.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    c. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The evidence of record does not indicate the actions taken in this case were in error or unjust. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140003805 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140003805 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079682C070215

    Original file (2002079682C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 June 2003 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002079682 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009762

    Original file (20130009762.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence indicating the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Based on the seriousness of his offense and in view of the fact that he voluntarily requested to be discharged in order to avoid a trial by court-martial that could have resulted in a punitive discharge, his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015185

    Original file (20090015185.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His punishments consisted of a reduction in pay grade (suspended for 60 days), a forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty. The available records do not show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change of his reason and authority for discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. ____________x____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013604

    Original file (20140013604.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) characterization of service to an honorable discharge (HD). After consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. a. Subsequent to a legal review, the Staff Judge Advocate stated on a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form)...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019592

    Original file (20140019592.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states: * his character of service is inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident out of 15 months of service with no other adverse actions * he was not represented by a lawyer * he was forced to sign documents while in custody without knowing what he was charged with or what a discharge in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) was * he was picked up one morning while in formation and told to come with...

  • CG | BCMR | Alcohol and Drug Cases | 2004-183

    Original file (2004-183.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of the current Personnel Manual permits the administrative inspection of any unit, regular or Reserve, by mandatory urinalysis “to determine and maintain the unit’s security, military fitness, and good order and discipline.” Under Article 20.C.3.e., a positive urinalysis test result is sufficient to prove a drug incident. The applicant received his general discharge in 1985. Moreover, as the JAG stated, the applicant’s reliance on Article 31 of the UCMJ and the decision in Giles...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100770C070208

    Original file (2004100770C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 December 2004 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004100770 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his of earlier request to correct his record to show he was retired due to a physical disability with pay and benefits, in lieu of being discharged with a general...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005829

    Original file (20110005829.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. However, no evidence shows he was discharged for drug abuse (paragraph 4-1a). _______ _ _X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072980C070403

    Original file (2002072980C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests that the phrase "Drug Abuse" be deleted from Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and that his DD Form 214 be corrected to show all awards and citations earned, including four bronze service stars (BSS) in lieu of one silver service star, and the Vietnam Gallantry Cross (sic). On 28 December 1971, the applicant was assigned to the United States Army Drug Abuser Holding Center, Vietnam...