| Mr. Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mr. Osborn | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Member | |
| Mr. Kathleen A. Newman | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by appointing him a Regular Army (RA) warrant officer in 1985 when he was not properly notified of his selection for RA Integration.
APPLICANT STATES: He reports that he discovered this error in January 1990, and believes that the Board should not have invoked the 3 year time limit. He contends that even if the described notification procedure had been followed in his case, it would not have met the requirements of the governing regulation and he takes issue with the conclusion as to the quality of his service. He also concludes, in effect, that the Board has places undue credence in the quality of the advice obtained through advisory opinions. Finally he contends that he has convincingly demonstrated that individuals were considered for RA Integration without having applied.
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 .
The applicant has provided a detailed point by point rebuttal most of the facts and a each conclusion provided in the former considerations of his case.
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 applicant reports that he was considered for RA Integration without applying, that he was not notified of that selection as was required by regulation, and that his unavoidable failure to respond adversely impacted upon his career. However, the Board has considered the applicant’s arguments and concludes that even if errors were made the applicant suffered no injustice. If he was of the opinion that not being RA was detrimental to his career , it seems, he would have applied for RA Integration. If not responding to a tendered RA appointment were in fact detrimental, then he would have discovered the “error” at that time, rather than in 1990 as he now reports. The remaining contentions as to how this incident hurt his career are simply conjecture as to how his career would have progressed if he had managed it differently.
2. All discussion of the time limitation is moot. 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.
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.
4. 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
__RVO__ ___SLP _ ___KAN_ DENY APPLICATION
Loren G. Harrell
Director
| CASE ID | AC91-10305 AR1997000731 |
| SUFFIX | F |
| RECON F | |
| DATE BOARDED | 19990114 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 333 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 1997000731C070209
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by appointing him a Regular Army (RA) warrant officer in 1985 when he was not properly notified of his selection for RA Integration. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9107374A
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The discharge review board (DRB) can only accept a request that is submitted within 15 years of the date of the discharge. 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 | CY1990-1993 | 9107374
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The discharge review board (DRB) can only accept a request that is submitted within 15 years of the date of the discharge. 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 | CY1980-1989 | 8910001
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was not properly advised by counsel at the time of his separation. 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. There is no evidence to suggest that his case was hampered by inadequate counsel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9107963A
The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by upgrading his discharge. In light of all the circumstances of the case, including that the applicant served without a discreditable incident until the AWOL (following his re-enlistment leave) that led to his Chapter 10 discharge, and especially his combat service, as evidenced by earning the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Air Medal and the Purple Heart, the current discharge is unjust and should be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9107963
The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by upgrading his discharge. In light of all the circumstances of the case, including that the applicant served without a discreditable incident until the AWOL (following his re-enlistment leave) that led to his Chapter 10 discharge, and especially his combat service, as evidenced by earning the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Air Medal and the Purple Heart, the current discharge is unjust and should be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8709019
APPLICANT REQUESTS : In effect, reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by upgrading his discharge, changing the reason for discharge or granting a medical discharge. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8906279
APPLICANT STATES : In effect that there were mental (post traumatic stress disorder) and physical conditions at the time of discharge that should have been considered. 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 7 March 1990 (COPY ATTACHED).The applicant’s contention’s that the upgrade of his discharge is warranted because he was suffering from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9306118A
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: The law and regulations cited in the Board’s prior consideration of the applicant’s case make it clear that to be separated for physical disability a soldier must be physically unable to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199708890
Evidence of record shows that the applicant’s condition existed prior to enlistment and there is nothing in the applicant’s record to indicate that his condition was aggravated by his military service. 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: The EPSBD determined that the applicant had medical conditions that were...