Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9308593
Original file (9308593.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request for
an upgrade of his dishonorable discharge to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES : That he was tried without a lawyer and, in effect, that his medical condition warrants relief.

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 21 July 1993 (COPY
ATTACHED).

A 1991 letter from a physician in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania indicates that the applicant has cancer of the larynx and had a total removal of the larynx in May of that year.

Notes furnished by the applicant indicate that in September 1992 he was found to have hepatitis. The applicant stated that his liver was damaged when he was wounded on Okinawa in 1945 and that he had a blood transfusion. Another note indicates that a cancer was removed from the applicant’s bladder on 17 November 1992, and that he received chemotherapy treatment, which ended in December 1994. He is also receiving blood work for hepatitis.

DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1. The applicant’s dishonorable discharge was justified.
The issue of a lawyer was dealt with in the original consideration of his case.

2. The Board empathizes with the applicant’s medical problems. However, considering the nature of the offenses for which he was convicted and for which he received a dishonorable discharge, these problems are not mitigating enough to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

3. 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. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.

4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

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




                                                      Karl F. Schneider
                                                      Acting Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090187C070212

    Original file (2003090187C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge be revoked and that he be transferred to the Retired Reserve with reinstatement of his Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) payments. Army Regulation 135-178, paragraph 12-1, Medically unfit for retention, states that Reserve enlisted soldiers who are no longer qualified for retention by reason of medical unfitness under the standards of AR 40-501, chapter 3 (Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation Including Retirement)...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057739C070420

    Original file (2001057739C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That his seizure disorder, bipolar disorder, arthritis, hepatitis C, dysthymia, and major depression were all due to his service in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm. The DVA physician placed the onset of symptoms for this condition to be the time the applicant was serving on active duty during Operation Desert Storm, based on the symptoms he exhibited...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005139C070208

    Original file (20040005139C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Powers | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. His request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100030309

    Original file (20100030309.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, that the records of her deceased father, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to upgrade his discharge to honorable and to show he retired with 23 years of service. The available records contain no evidence of any administrative actions extending the applicant on active duty beyond his established retirement date. The FSM was not (or should not have been) discharged with a UOTHC discharge and should be shown to have retired with 23 years of service.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1984-04083A

    Original file (BC-1984-04083A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 Oct 83, his commander recommended discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends, as a diabetic herself, that her husband’s elevated blood sugar episode was not properly followed up by the Air Force. Review of service and DVA medical records through 1992 show no evidence of diabetes, and evaluation by DVA physicians also indicate no...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1991-02293A

    Original file (BC-1991-02293A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 Oct 83, his commander recommended discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends, as a diabetic herself, that her husband’s elevated blood sugar episode was not properly followed up by the Air Force. Review of service and DVA medical records through 1992 show no evidence of diabetes, and evaluation by DVA physicians also indicate no...

  • CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2003-085

    Original file (2003-085.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DVA found his cancer to be service-connected and rated him as 100% disabled. In this case, the Board finds that the applicant was clearly able to perform his duties prior to his retirement, but his service-connected condition made him unemployable after his retirement. § 1414 to allow disabled retired veterans to receive concurrent retirement pay and disability benefits from the DVA without any offset.11 However, the 10 See Parthemore v. United States, 1 Cl.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012162

    Original file (20110012162.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his tuberculosis be approved for Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC). The applicant states his medical records prove conclusively that his tuberculosis was caused, or aggravated, by his participation in armed conflict in Vietnam. In the NARSUM it was stated that the applicant had been in Vietnam for 16 months prior to his admission to the hospital.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059230C070421

    Original file (2001059230C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That his condition has been diagnosed as moderate to severe aortic insufficiency with dilated aortic root (Marfan’s like syndrome), and that if his record of his medical condition was accurate upon his retirement, it would have shown a serious condition related to his cardio system. The applicant submits 16 tabs with his application, showing his medical...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050007658C070206

    Original file (20050007658C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In earlier correspondence to the Board, dated 14 June 2004, he states he had been on active duty for over 100 days when the biopsy was done, stayed on active duty over 150 days after the biopsy, and the lesion had not healed when he was removed from active duty. He also argues that because his cancer was discovered within 90 days after his separation that the Army was bound to treat the condition which would have resulted in his retention on active duty, payment of medical expensive, and/or...