Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9308805
Original file (9308805.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request for upgrading of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), which was denied by this Board on 23 November 1994.
APPLICANT STATES : Essentially as in his initial request, that he was convicted of a crime for which he was not guilty and confined, by a civil government; that his commander was prejudiced against him; and, that the Army destroyed his life.

COUNSEL CONTENDS : Counsel was silent on the issue.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD : Incorporated herein by reference are military records which are summarized in a memorandum presented before this Board on 23 November 1994 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant has furnished no new or material evidence in support of his request.

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. 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.

2. Trial by special court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged and his history of repeated indisciplines. His conviction was in accordance with applicable law and regulation.

3. The applicant appeared before a board of officers who recommended, and was later approved, that he be discharged for unfitness. The discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant had a history and was convicted.

4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION : The original decision by this Board is reaffirmed.

BOARD VOTE :

GRANT

GRANT FORMAL HEARING

DENY APPLICATION




                                                      Karl F. Schneider
                                                      Acting Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012372

    Original file (20120012372.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to an honorable discharge. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 3, as a result of court-martial with a bad conduct discharge. The applicant contends his bad conduct discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge based on his otherwise honorable service...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000557

    Original file (20140000557.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states he was retained 2 years beyond his expiration of term of service (ETS) date to initiate administrative separation in violation of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), and Army Regulation 40-400 (Patient Administration). d. Under Army Regulation 635-200, a Soldier in civilian confinement and not under military control will be separated under paragraph 2-13b which states, "A Soldier in...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610823C070209

    Original file (9610823C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military and medical records show: On 16 August 1965, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States. On 2 November 1994, almost 27 years after his separation from active duty, a VA Rating Decision awarded the applicant a service-connected disability rating of 100 percent, effective 23 February 1994, for glomerulonephritis with hypertension, requiring dialysis. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610939C070209

    Original file (9610939C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant requests that his administrative reduction be set aside and he be restored to pay grade E-7, considered for promotion to pay grade E-8, and if selected, retired in that pay grade, and that all his recruiting awards that were erroneously revoked, be returned to him. The recorder indicated that the delay in the convening of the reduction board was directly related to the fact that the reduction board was directly tied into an elimination action,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005891

    Original file (20140005891.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service. On 16 March 1998, he was notified by his immediate commander of the intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b/c, a pattern of misconduct/misconduct, commission of a serious offense because he went AWOL on two separate occasions. On 17 April 1998, the separation...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011104

    Original file (20120011104.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 May 1994, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 14-5 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations) for a conviction by civil court. On 12 October 1994, the separation authority approved the administrative discharge and ordered the applicant discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-5 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of conviction by criminal court and directed the issuance of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017438C070206

    Original file (20050017438C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests to present his case before a formal panel of the Board. The applicant states his command did not take into consideration his nearly eight years of honorable service. Pursuant to Article 66(b), UCMJ, the record of trial was referred to the United States Army Court of Military Review (ACMR).

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090446C070212

    Original file (2003090446C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 23 March 1994, the United States Army Court of Military Review upon consideration of the entire record, held that the findings of guilty and the sentence as approved by the GCM convening authority was correct in law and fact. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDARSUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDEDTYPE OF DISCHARGE(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)DATE OF DISCHARGEDISCHARGE...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024078

    Original file (20100024078.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. On 12 January 1994, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of paragraph, 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000403

    Original file (20140000403.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 October 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140000403 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel states the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision letter stated the applicant's physical and mental conditions at the time of discharge are unclear. As soon as he returned, his wife left him with two children to look after.