Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9307651
Original file (9307651.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records by upgrading his undesirable discharge (UD).

APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was abused by his sergeant and that because of the way he was treated he started to drink.

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 2 June 1993. (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant’s contentions that he was abused by his sergeant who jerked him from a tank and because of this abuse he started drinking constitutes new argument.

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.

The applicant was discharged, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had 5 months and 9 days of active duty creditable service and 406 days lost time.

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 record is devoid of any reference to the existence of any emotional or physical abuse by his superiors.

2. There is no evidence of record that the applicant was so impaired by alcohol problems that he could not both tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, or that the discharge resulted from a diminished capacity due to alcohol.

3. 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 do not amount to sufficient evidence to establish that there was an error or injustice regarding the procedures of his discharge or the type of discharge he received.

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 previous 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 | 9306188

    Original file (9306188.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. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064377C070421

    Original file (2001064377C070421.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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 | CY2013 | 2014000220

    Original file (2014000220.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous application to upgrade his general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. He provides a copy of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision letter from his previous application. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, prescribed the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002220

    Original file (20140002220.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous application to upgrade his general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. He provides a copy of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision letter from his previous application. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, prescribed the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106506C070208

    Original file (2004106506C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel requests, in effect, that the request for reconsideration for a change to the narrative reason for the separation of his client and the RE code applied to his client's DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be reviewed by the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), base on newly discovered evidence. Item 21 (Commanders' Assessment) was checked, "Failure." On 21 February 1996, the applicant's commander initiated action to separate him...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066461C070402

    Original file (2002066461C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES : In effect, the Board previously found that he failed to provide evidence showing an error or injustice in his separation processing. He concludes that it is his opinion that the applicant never abused alcohol, and this action was taken to present an example to others. The record clearly shows that the applicant was entitled to have his case considered by an administrative separation board, a forum at which he could have presented his evidence to contest the basis for his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00091

    Original file (BC-2005-00091.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel discusses the applicant’s problems with alcohol and states that alcohol dependency is recognized as a mental and physical disease. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: In his response to the Air Force evaluations, counsel disagrees with the assertion by AFPC/JA the applicant has not submitted evidence he is an alcoholic or suffers from alcoholism. The...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062295C070421

    Original file (2001062295C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant submits copies of documents related to his reductions in grade which include his company commander’s 12 January 2000 recommendation for separation, part of the proceedings of his 21 November 2000 Administrative Separation Board, a summary of his rehabilitation appointments recorded on two appointment information sheets, two court-martial charge sheets for cocaine use, a 26 June 2000 summary of rehabilitation services, and a 30 November 2000 letter from a private substance abuse...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054176C070420

    Original file (2001054176C070420.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 previous consideration of the case (AR1999032774) on 1 August 2000. It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00462

    Original file (BC-2003-00462.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The XXX TAW commander testified that he was not aware of any alcohol problems the applicant might have had, that the applicant had family and financial problems, and that while the applicant never told him he had an alcohol problem, it was possible he did have an alcohol problem. He testified the applicant never told him he had an alcohol problem. Diagnosis was probable alcohol abuse with a recommendation to the commander to refer the applicant again to Social Actions and, if retained, to...