MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 14 January 1999
DOCKET NUMBER: AC91-10305D
AR1997000731
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.
Member
The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.
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.
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 applicants 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
INDEX
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 | 1997000731
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 January 1999 DOCKET NUMBER: AC91-10305D AR1997000731 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. The Board has never denied an application simply because it was not submitted within the required time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004886
Through a State Representative, the applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his two earlier petitions requesting the removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) and Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) for the periods ending on 4 May 1989 and 12 October 1989, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); and his reinstatement on active duty in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program. In a letter to his State Representative, the applicant states, in effect, that...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2000-03171
The IG investigation reported that five reasons had been cited for the applicant’s dismissal. AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that the essence of the DPPPE advisory opinion is that since the Inspector General did not find the applicant’s complaint of reprisal to have been substantiated,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003382
c. When Military Personnel (MILPER) Message Number 08-033, subject: (Updated) AAA-294 Enlisted Promotion Report Automatic List Integration Section for Staff Sergeant) was issued on 1 February 2008, he was never informed of its provisions and he was not aware of any action by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) to put him on the standing list for promotion to SSG/E-6. The company commander, first sergeant, and the battalion command sergeant major formed negative opinions of him...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001036
The applicant states he is shocked that the Board denied his request to correct his records. On 9 March 1992, orders were published by the 7th Army Reserve Command in Europe promoting the applicant to SGM effective 9 March 1992 with a date of rank of 1 August 1991. The applicant stated he is shocked that the Board denied his request to correct his records.
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 | CY1996 | 9608317C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request for promotion to Major. The statute under which the Board was established provides that an application must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. However, The Board has never denied an application simply because it was not submitted within the required time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004442C070208
Counsel requests, in effect, that a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) be removed from the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Counsel also claims that the applicant sought the assistance of civilian counsel to effectuate removal of the GOMOR from his OMPF from the DASEB. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by transferring the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand and all related...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2006-134
[The applicant] should be retained in the Coast Guard. of the Personnel Manual state that a drug incident is determined by the member’s commanding officer, and the applicant’s CO had determined that there was just one drug incident. of the Personnel Manual provides that the BOR shall “review[] the records and documented evidence the board of inquiry considered and made a part of its proceedings and any additional information the officer concerned or the recorder submitted under Article...