| Mr. | Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. | Raymond V. O’Connor Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. | James M. Alward | Member |
| Mr. | Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mr. | Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the reason for his discharge be changed from fraudulent entry to discharged under chapter 7 and that he be given a reserve obligation with an expiration date.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that fraudulent entry is not applicable; that he disclosed his financial obligations to the best of his knowledge to include that he had filed bankruptcy; that he was told at the time of discharge that it was waiverable by the local recruiter; and that he is now told by his local recruiter that it is not possible.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 12 September 1996 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 4 years. At the time of enlistment the applicant was 31 years of age and a college graduate. He successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training (AIT), at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, at which time he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 75H (Personnel Specialist) and was assigned to remain at Fort Jackson for his first permanent duty station.
The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition and no incidents of disciplinary infractions prior to the action for which he was ultimately discharged.
On 27 May 1997 the chief of student processing services forwarded a completed report of investigation, on the applicant, which contained certain information requiring a waiver for entry into the Regular Army and may have resulted in rejection; the applicant had failed to reveal the information while undergoing enlistment processing. On 29 May 1997 the applicant was counseled, by his immediate supervisor, on the information contained in the report of investigation and advised that separation action was a possibility. The applicant responded to the counseling with a statement indicating he now wished to leave the Army because his wife now had a full time position as an elementary school teacher which would provide them the resources to relieve their outstanding debts.
On 29 May 1997 the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action on him, under the provisions of chapter 7, AR 635-200, for fraudulent enlistment. The commander cited as his reasons for the action the applicant’s failure to disclose all the information regarding his financial records during enlistment into the military; in addition, he stated that had such information been known and considered by the Army at the time of enlistment it may have resulted in rejection.
The applicant elected to waive his right to consult counsel and completed his election of rights by submitting a statement in his own behalf. On 30 May 1997 the separation packet was reviewed by chief of the criminal law division who determined that the proposed action was legally sufficient.
On 30 May 1997 the intermediate level commander recommended approval of the separation action and recommended that the applicant not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) since he clearly has no potential for useful service under the condition of full mobilization. The appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be issued an honorable discharge and not be transferred to the IRR. Accordingly, on 6 June 1997 the applicant was discharged after completing 8 months and 25 days of active military service.
There is no evidence the applicant has ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board requesting a change in the reason and authority for discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 7, Section V, paragraph 7-17 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for fraudulent entry. Fra``udulent entry is the procurement of an enlistment, reenlistment, or period of active service through any deliberate material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment of information which, if known and considered by the Army at the time of enlistment or reenlistment might have resulted in rejection. This includes all disqualifying information requiring a waiver.
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 evidence of record and the independent evidence submitted by the applicant does not support his contention that he disclosed his debts to the best of his knowledge. The Board was satisfied that the separation process was legally sufficient as evidenced by the legal determination by the chief of criminal law; in addition, the Board concluded that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
2. The Board noted the applicant’s contention that his local recruiter advised him that they did not do waivers and that there is no waiver allowed for debts. However, this is not an issue that raises a matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion relating to the discharge process nor is it associated with the discharge at the time of issuance.
3. 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.
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
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
Loren G. Harrell
Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 97115291
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 1997010596
APPLICANT REQUESTS : Reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by showing he was erroneously court-martialed, erroneously discharged based on fraudulent enlistment, and upgrading his discharge from a general discharge, under honorable conditions to fully honorable. On 11 August 1969 his discharge characterization was upgraded to a general discharge, under honorable conditions, by the Discharge Review Board. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709817
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. On 23 June 1965, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-89, paragraph 6, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711784
The applicant submitted an appeal of the bar to reenlistment with the support of his chain of command to the Department of the Army Standby Advisory Board at the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC). The DASEB denied his request. The applicant received a reprimand from his company commander and a letter of concern from his battalion commander and was counseled on several occasions by his commanders regarding his conduct in these matters.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711693
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 3 September 1991, the applicant was discharged, with a bad conduct discharge, pursuant to his court-martial sentence. On 28 March 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060263C070421
He subsequently received a letter from the finance office at Fort Jackson on 20 January 1997, which indicated that the evacuation allowances would cease effective 5 December 1996 and that his dependents needed to submit a final voucher. Accordingly, it was reasonable for him to presume that the allowances being provided directly to his dependents would cease once he provided documentation to show that they were no longer his dependents. RECOMMENDATION : That all of the Department of the...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700241
PERSONAL CONDUCT; FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION : 20010301: Your Credit Bureau Report disclosed the following: * ALLTEL charged off $428.00 in July 1997. Date Applicant Responded to Notification:20021108 Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board GCMCA review Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): N/A (LOCAL SEPARATION) Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING OFFICER, NAVAL HOSPTIAL, GREAT LAKES, ILLINOIS...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709343
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709343C070209
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. However, it does include a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017356
In a memorandum, dated 14 August 2003, the USAR Personnel Command notified the applicant of the action to consider him for separation from the USAR for erroneous enlistment and for fraudulent enlistment. The advisory opinion's response to counsel's argument that "the separation board's evidence against [the applicant] was both legally and factually insufficient" states: The assumption that the board was based on an erroneous 1997 California ARNG discharge for fraudulent enlistment which had...