APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of her request concerning her incentive special pay (ISP) and medical additional special pay (MASP).
APPLICANT STATES: She restates her original contention concerning her ISP and MAP. She indicated that she would product sworn affidavits supporting her allegations. In addition, she made allegations of (1) sexual harrassment and gender discrimination, (2) the violation of the physician/patient status during a criminal investigation, and (3) her reassignment under the pretense that she was responsible for her units high suicide rate.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: Incorporated herein be reference are military records which are summarized in proceedings presented before this Board on 11 December 1996 (COPY ATTACHED).
On 13 September 1996, in response to the applicants prior allegations concerning this issue, the Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison, responded to several members of congress, indicating that:
1. the Battalion Commander, demonstrating the method for teaching people to overcome their fear of heights by initially jumping off small platforms, instructed her to stand on a footlocker. When she told him that she felt stupid, he told her to get down and then demonstrated the technique himself,
2. the applicant was advised that a representative of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps and special agents from the Criminal Investigation Command would be observing her interview of the accused soldier. She informed the soldier that her statements were neither confidential nor privileged. Following the interview of the soldier, the member of JAG reviewed his notes with the applicant, who did not object, and
3. the applicant was reassigned from the 82nd Airborne Division to Womack Army Medical Center because she was not and did not desire to become airborne qualified, which is a requirement for assignment to that unit.
On 3 April 1997, a member of the staff of the Board spoke with the applicant and requested copies of the sworn affidavits supporting her allegation. The applicant agreed to accomplish this action. In lieu of the requested affidavits, she furnished a newspaper article, dated 5 days after her request was received at the Board and a copy of her prior denial of release from active duty.
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.
2. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
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
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120018733
Counsel provided an email from Ms. AS, dated 16 November 2009, wherein Ms. AS stated: * she would be substantiating the case against the applicant for sexually abusing his stepdaughter * she had made several attempts to contact the applicant's attorney to set up a meeting to talk with the applicant, but no meeting had occurred * OCS was requesting the applicant complete a sex offender assessment before he be permitted to have any unsupervised contact with his children * the applicant could...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02532
The rater submitted a letter of support stating "Had I known that a privileging hearing would exonerate [the applicant] of these professional charges I would not have signed off on the OPR." The sexual harassment allegations were fabricated and Major --- and Lt Col --- escalated the allegations to eliminate the applicant. Lt Col --- presented the rater with the Report of Inquiry in which the JAG wrote and determined sexual harassment occurred.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001501C070206
The applicant denied those charges and told the investigating officer (IO) Ms. A___ would do anything to get out of her Army commitment. Counsel states the statements by Ms. B___, SSG D___, and the applicant were taken in conjunction with an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation. Counsel contended Captain L___ investigated Kayla A___'s allegations against the applicant; however, there is no evidence of record and he does not provide any that shows Captain L___ investigated that allegation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001501C070206
The applicant denied those charges and told the investigating officer (IO) Ms. A___ would do anything to get out of her Army commitment. Counsel states the statements by Ms. B___, SSG D___, and the applicant were taken in conjunction with an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation. Counsel contended Captain L___ investigated Kayla A___'s allegations against the applicant; however, there is no evidence of record and he does not provide any that shows Captain L___ investigated that allegation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004460C070208
On 26 November 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge. She stated that she told the Department of Social Services at the time that the statements were not true, but they did not want to believe her. In that recantation, she stated that she had told the Department of Social Services at the time that the statements were not true.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090237C070212
Counsel states that the applicant was notified his case would be referred to a Promotion Review Board (PRB). Counsel states that, based on concerns presented to the DODIG not by the DAIG but by the applicant himself, the DODIG reviewed in detail the validity of the DAIG's investigative findings. The DODIG report stated that, by memorandum dated 21 June 1996 (not available to the Board), an attorney in OTJAG documented his legal review of the DAIG ROI.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004308C071029
On 24 October 1993, the applicant was charged with assaulting his wife. He told her he needed to call an ambulance to get her to the hospital [where she was eventually treated for nine days]. The Manual for Courts-Martial United States, Part II, Rule 401 (Forwarding and disposition of charges in general) states only persons authorized to convene courts-martial or to administer nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 may dispose of charges.
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2004-117
The applicant stated that PO S testified that LT C had generated the page 7s and lowered the applicant’s evaluation marks by 19 points in retribution for being reported by the applicant and that CDR H later “tried to barter with me over the page 7s … [but] I would not be swayed by [him] to change my tone about the safety inci- dents.” The applicant argued that it is in the interest of justice for the Board to waive the statute of limitations because he did not know about the BCMR and its...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2012-059
The JAG stated that based upon the investigation and letter of censure, the applicant (and not any other officer) was responsible for the conflict that existed in the workplace climate during the period covered by the disputed OER. The supervisor stated that the applicant was given a letter of censure by the Sector Commander, in which the applicant was told that “he would not currently be recommended for promotion to the next higher pay grade, but since he was at the mid-point of his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000079C070208
He states that one of the statements was the “second statement” rendered by one of the enlisted women. She indicated that he inspected her room and then started to make small talk and asked her what she had on under the sheet and then began asking more personal questions. The evidence suggests that the investigation was conducted appropriately, that the investigating officer interviewed appropriate individuals, despite the applicant’s argument to the contrary, and that his findings and...