Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9306188
Original file (9306188.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records by upgrading his discharge.
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he drank for ten years after returning from Vietnam and that he has been alcohol free for 20 years. That all of the periods of AWOL were after he returned from Vietnam. He is willing to be rehabilitated for his future and he received his GED in 1992.

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 12 May 1993 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant’s contention that he was impaired due to alcohol after his service in Vietnam which was when he started going AWOL and that he has started rehabilitation by receiving his GED constitutes new argument.

The military service records show the applicant was assigned to Vietnam from 5 December 1967 to 30 October 1968 and that the AWOL periods totaling 337 days lost time were all after his return from Vietnam. However, on 17 May 1968 while in Vietnam he was reduced from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2.

Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 10c provides, in pertinent part, that reconsideration of a Board decision will be made when additional evidence or other matter including, but not limited to factual allegations or arguments, that were not previously available to the Board has been submitted.

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 applicant’s contention that drinking alcohol after returning from Vietnam which started his problems is not supported by the evidence of record.

2. In the absence of evidence that the applicant, at the time of the discharge, was so impaired by alcoholic problems that he could not both tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, his contention of diminished capacity does not demonstrate an error or an injustice in the discharge.

3. The Board notes the applicant’s receipt of his GED and his intentions to rehabilitate to include being alcohol free, however, these unsubtantiated contentions do not demonstrate an error of an injustice in the discharge nor do they warrant relief.

4. 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.

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

6. 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 | CY1990-1993 | 9107175

    Original file (9107175.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 12 August 1992 (COPY ATTACHED).The contention that he was impaired due to alcoholism when he returned from Vietnam and that he was not himself constitutes new argument. There is no evidence of record that the applicant was impaired by alcohol and that he could not both tell right...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9307651

    Original file (9307651.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 10c provides, in pertinent part, that reconsideration of a Board decision will be made when additional evidence or other matter including, but not limited to factual allegations or arguments, that were not previously available to the Board has been submitted. Considering the entirety of the case, the Board has considered all of the applicant’s past and present contentions regarding his desire to have his discharge upgraded, but the applicant’s contentions...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077296C070215

    Original file (2002077296C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. On 22 January 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge. The Board also noted the applicant received five nonjudicial punishments, two special courts-martial, and was AWOL for over 600 days after returning from Vietnam.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009763

    Original file (20080009763.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 September 1973, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), for the good of the service and was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The evidence shows the applicant did have a good record up until the time that he started going AWOL. The applicant was within 6 months of his ETS (as adjusted from previous periods of AWOL) when he started his last period of AWOL.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022659

    Original file (20110022659.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides the following documents: * a letter from the Incarcerated Veterans' Consortium, Inc. * power of attorney * a Standard Form 502 (Clinical Record – Narrative Summary) * police reports * a letter * his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * a page from the Summary of Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Hearing * civilian medical records * several character-reference letters CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The same letter shows the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9305411

    Original file (9305411.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION : Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 31 March 1993 (COPY ATTACHED).The applicant’s claim that the FSM died of a Vietnam related condition and that he was discharged unjustly is new evidence. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to submit the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010524

    Original file (20140010524.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9107374A

    Original file (9107374A.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The discharge review board (DRB) can only accept a request that is submitted within 15 years of the date of the discharge. 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:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9107374

    Original file (9107374.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The discharge review board (DRB) can only accept a request that is submitted within 15 years of the date of the discharge. 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:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008255

    Original file (20100008255.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Therefore, he requested a discharge. The separation authority could direct an honorable or general discharge if such a discharge was merited by the Soldier's overall record.