APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his request that his records be corrected to (1) reflect his retirement at the highest pay grade held; (2) that all pay and allowances withheld from the time of his retirement to present be reimbursed; (3) that the excessive fine improperly imposed as a result of his general court-martial (GCM) be rescinded; (4) that money paid toward his fine be refunded, in full; and, (5) that his GCM be expunged from his records. The applicant further points out that a promulgation order was not accomplished; that this Board search for evidence which was not available to him; that the Article 32 investigation filed in his GCM is not a verbatim record of what transpired during the arraignment or the GCM; that his defense counsel acted improperly; and, that his GCM was conducted to prevent him from blowing the whistle concerning the illegal and improper administration of the urinalysis program. The applicant provided no documentary evidence of his allegations.
APPLICANT STATES: (1) That he was advised by his military defense counsel (MDC) that he had 7 years to file a claim with this Board, therefore, the denial of his action is erroneous; (2) that Army regulations state that a service member is to be retired at the highest grade held, even after a reduction; (3) that he notified his supervisors that the UA (sic) program was being incorrectly administered; (4) that he began the process of blowing the whistle; (5) that, because the Inspector General indicated something wasnt quite right about the bringing of charges, he was transferred to an unknown destination; (6) that the Chief of Staff was also reassigned; (7) that his civilian counsel quit, because they got the word; (8) that the judge and prosecution had two ex-parte communications; (9) that the MDC was moved to Fort Carson, Colorado two weeks after the trial; (10) that the MDC refused to subpoena a man from Mississippi; (11) that the MDC refused to subpoena a local resident of Denver; (12) that the judge and prosecutor were overheard discussing appropriate punishment; (13) that at least two jurors kept falling asleep during plaintiffs testimony; (14) that the MDC refused to assist in filing appeals; (15) that he could not afford civilian counsel; and, (16) that the person in charge of investigating the appeal at the Army level in Washington, D.C. was a former prosecutor from Fort Carson, who may have still had friends and colleagues at her former assignment.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which are summarized in a memorandum presented before this Board on 5 March 1997 (COPY ATTACHED).
Army Regulation 15-185, Army Board For Correction Of Military Records, indicates, in pertinent part, that A claimant, his/her heir, or legal representative must file the application for correction of a record within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.
Army Regulation 600-200, Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel, indicates, in pertinent part, that (1) Retirement will be in the regular or reserve grade the soldier holds on the date of retirement; (2) Retired soldiers who have less than 30 years of active service are entitled, when their active service plus service on the retired list total 30 years, to be advanced on the retired list to the highest grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily; When these soldiers complete 30 years of service, their military personnel records are reviewed to determine whether service in the higher grade was satisfactory; and, Grade determinations for purposes of advancement on the retired list are made by the Army Grade Determination Review Board, on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, per AR 15-80.
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. The applicant has provided no documentary evidence nor is their any in the Official Military Personnel File or Record of Trial.
3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis upon which to grant the applicants request.
DETERMINATION: The original decision by this Board is reaffirmed.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00813
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00813 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to give him Whistleblower protection; show his graduation from Air War College (AWC); his reinstatement to the New York Air National Guard (NYANG) or comparable posting; promotion to the grade of colonel (O-6) backdated to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015000C071029
The IG report noted that prior to the riot there had been minor altercations in the post exchange between “Negroes” and Italians, and even between Italians and white American Soldiers. During the IG investigation, one of the Italian witnesses, Mag___, was asked about a “Negro” MP. The lead defense counsel had 9 days from service of the charges on the applicant and on 42 other accused to prepare for trial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007566
The ABCMR decides cases on the evidence of record; it is not an investigative body. The Army, by law, may pay claims for amounts due to applicants as a result of correction of military records. In his original application, and even subsequent to the Board's decision, neither he nor his counsel raised the issue of serving through 30 years or requesting the maximum retired pay allowed at the time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000936
On 19 April 2006, the applicant's senior commander recommended that the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF. Neither the applicant nor his counsel has provided any conclusive evidence that shows the record of his prior driving offenses was in error or that it was the deciding factor for the BG's filing decision. The PRB reviewed the GOMOR, the applicant's complete military records, and his rebuttal, to include the information he provided on the disposition for the charges against him,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091524C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant’s request that the Board review the evidence of record and determine for itself whether his command proved that he was guilty of the charges preferred against him beyond a reasonable doubt and whether he was denied due process must also be addressed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022129
The applicant provides copies of his: * retirement application and orders * request for withdrawal of retirement * removal from promotion selection list * post-9/11 GI Bill transfer of benefit approval * request for retirement and promotion determination * HRC IG finding CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 12 (Retirement for Length of Service), provides in: a. paragraph 12-8 (Service obligations), subparagraph d,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608474C070209
The applicant states he had [his] day in the civilian court, and the judge found [him] not guilty of the DUI charge because there was insufficient evidence. He states the judge dropped the DUI charge for insufficient evidence after he informed him that he had passed three field sobriety tests. The applicant was issued a LOR on 13 June 1995 which indicated he refused to complete a lawfully requested breathalyzer test. Letters of reprimand may be filed in a soldier's OMPF only upon the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605113C070209
The IG specifically noted that sufficient evidence exists in performance documentation to preclude the notion that [the reduction] action was one of retaliation. On 19 September 1992 the applicants unit commander notified him that he was initiating action to reduce him from E-4 to E-3 because of his demonstrated inability to perform the duties and responsibilities of [his] grade and MOS. The applicant submitted a rebuttal, dated 4 October 1992, in which he denied the allegations against...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082608C070215
In support of his application, he submits two DA Forms 1574 (Record of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers), separation orders, and several memorandums. Pursuant to Army Regulation 15-6, paragraph 2-3, the command was required to conduct a legal review of the investigation prior to initiation of action, which was not done in the applicant's case. He stated that according to the findings and recommendations of a board of officers which convened on 18 November 1998, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007677C080410
On 21 September 1989, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, with a general discharge, for ADAPCP Rehabilitation Failure. On 22 September 1989, the appropriate separation authority directed the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, with the issuance of a general discharge. The applicant was enrolled in an ADAPCP and failed to comply...