| Mr. Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ernest M. Willcher | Member | |
| Mr. Robert W. Garrett | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reinstatement on active duty at an appropriate rank and pay grade and all back pay and allowances from the date of his discharge until the date of his reinstatement.
APPLICANT STATES: Court-martial charges were preferred against him and then dismissed based on insufficient evidence. Then, an administrative discharge board was convened. He contends that the evidence presented to that board was insufficient to justify his discharge. To the contrary, testimony from two professionals clearly showed there was no basis to his ex-wife’s allegation that he molested or in any other way abused his daughter. He states he will submit additional evidence, but none is included.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant’s military records show:
He enlisted on 21 March 1982 and had continuous service until his discharge. There is no evidence in the record of any disciplinary action of any kind prior to the incident in question.
On 15 October 1992, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with sodomy and indecent acts with a child under 16. On 2 March 1993, the Staff Judge Advocate informed the general court-martial authority that facts developed after preferring the charges led him to believe the applicant committed the charged offenses but it was unlikely the prosecution would be able to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt.
On 3 March 1993, the court-martial charges were withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice to the government.
On 23 April 1993, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for commission of a serious offense.
The applicant acknowledged the separation action. He requested his case be considered by a board of officers, he wanted to make a personal appearance before such a board, and wanted representation by counsel before such a board. He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 20 September 1993, a hearing was held. The applicant and witnesses for the applicant appeared before the board. The board found by a preponderance of evidence that he had committed a serious offense and recommended his discharge with a general discharge.
On 27 September 1993, the applicant submitted a rebuttal requesting retention on active duty. He stated that his background as an abused child himself and his degree of concern for his family caused his answers to the Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigators to appear like admissions. The allegations of abuse by his wife were self-serving and enabled her to divorce him in Germany. One of his witnesses testified under oath of his professional opinion that what his daughter said to his wife and CID agent was a learned experience through untrained leading questioning and not memories of sexual abuse by himself.
On 27 October 1993, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the applicant receive a general discharge.
On 8 November 1993, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge, in pay grade E-6, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct. He had completed 11 years, 7 months and 15 days of creditable active service and had no lost time. His awards and decorations included the Army Commendation Medal (3d Oak Leaf Cluster), the Army Achievement Medal and the Army Good Conduct Medal.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.
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. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. The expert testimony of his two witnesses was considered by the board and his overall record of service was considered in recommending he receive a general discharge. The applicant has submitted no additional evidence.
3. 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
JNS EMW RWG DENY APPLICATION
Loren G. Harrell
Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705768C070209
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199709385
• The applicant denies that he sexually abused or assaulted his daughter; • There is no direct, probative or corroborating evidence that he sexually abused his daughter; • Applicant’s daughter never testified under oath regarding the allegations; • Applicant’s plea of guilty was made expressly for the purpose of his wife and daughter not having to testify at a civilian criminal trial; • The applicant’s quality of service and performance of duty attest to his good character; and • The board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199709385C070209
Counsel states that the applicant contends that his discharge was materially and legally in error, and unjust, in that: The applicant denies that he sexually abused or assaulted his daughter; There is no direct, probative or corroborating evidence that he sexually abused his daughter; Applicants daughter never testified under oath regarding the allegations; Applicants plea of guilty was made expressly for the purpose of his wife and daughter not having to testify at a civilian criminal...
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 | CY1997 | 199710726
A statement made by the mother of the female shows that she told the applicant that her daughter was 14 years old. 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, it is concluded: The evidence of record shows that during that period of time he also associated with friends of the female who were also minors.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199710726C070209
The document shows the statement 99.99 percent of falsely accused men would be excluded as the father by the above tests. The CID Report also shows, in various statements made by four females (ages 14, 14, 15,and16 at the time), that the applicant had assaulted a minor female by punching her in the stomach with a closed fist; that he engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with another minor (15-year old) female; and that he assaulted a minor female by grabbing her breast. The applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012492
After making allegations against the applicant, the alleged victim recanted, stating she lied; b. the board heard testimony from other sources the alleged victims high school counselor, a Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) case worker, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC, also known as CID) investigators which was all based on the victims dubious allegations; c. the board ignored or gave little weight to the fact there was no forensic evidence linking the applicant to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710805
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant’s military records show: Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02500-98
2500-98 14 April 1999 Dears This is in reference to your naval record pursuant to the States Code, Section 1552. application for correction of your provisions of Title 10, United \ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 March 1999. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. also married with two daughters, ages 18...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710636
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: He was convicted by a special court-martial on 20 April 1971 and was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 3 months, reduced to the pay grade of E-1, and a forfeiture of pay.