| Mr. Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Ms. Gale Thomas | Analyst |
| Ms. Karen L. Wolff | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. Kenneth L. Wright | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected by erasing all past Article 15’s from his records.
APPLICANT STATES: That he has been discharged from the Army for over 10 years, and would like to have a clean military past.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 13 January 1981, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years.
On 21 February 1981, and 20 August 1982, he was advanced to pay grades E-2, and E-3, respectively.
On 17 May 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCJM), for the wrongful possession of some amount of marijuana. His punishment was reduction to pay grade E-2, and correctional custody for 30 days.
On 19 January 1983, he accepted NJP, under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment included forfeiture, extra duty, and reduction (suspended). The suspended reduction was vacated and the applicant was reduced to pay grade E-2, after failing to show up for extra duty.
On 16 June 1983, he was counseled for failing the unit’s physical fitness test.
On 3 November 1983, the applicant was formally counseled for failure to achieve the maximum allowable weight, as prescribed in Army Regulation 600-9 (Army Weight Control Program).
On 4 November 1983, the applicant was given an extension of 30 days in the weight control program, in order to loose 2 pounds needed to meet the weight standard.
On 8 December 1983, the applicant was counseled concerning his apathy towards the Weight Control Program, and that any further misconduct in the next 30 days would result in his being recommended for separation.
12 December 1983, the applicant was given a final determination of his status in the Overweight Program. He was informed that he entered the program a second time on 28 September 1983, weighing 186 pounding and needing to reach a standard of 184 pounds; that he was granted an extension to reach his target weight but on 2 December 1983 he weighed 187 pounds. Because of the applicant’s consistent inability to reach his standard he was being declared a failure of the Weight Control Program.
On 23 December 1983, a physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.
On 9 January 1984, his commander notified him of his intent to initiate action to separate him under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant was advised of his rights.
On 9 January 1984, the applicant acknowledged notification of his commander’s intent, consulted with legal counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf.
On 9 January 1984, his commander requested that he be separated from the service, and that the requirements for a rehabilitative transfer be waived.
On 13 January 1984, the appropriate separation authority waived rehabilitation and approved the separation of the applicant with a general discharge.
On 10 February 1984, the applicant was discharge under the above cited regulation. His Report of Separation indicates he had 3 years and 28 days of creditable service.
On 14 November 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicants request to upgrade his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.
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 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. The discharge proceeding were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.
4. There is no evidence in the available records, nor did the applicant provide documentation to justify the removal of the his two Article 15’s.
5. 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
___klw__ ___mhm__ __klw___ DENY APPLICATION
Loren G. Harrell
Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011896
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 January 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110011896 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. __________X___________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090647C070212
He was denied extension of his enlistment at his expiration term of service (ETS) but the underlying reason was a suspension of favorable personnel actions for being on the Army's weight control program. The 24 January 2002 letter from The Office of the Adjutant General, State of California indicates the applicant's unit requested a one-time waiver, not to exceed 12 months, in order for him to extend to qualify towards attaining 20 qualifying years for retirement. Since he was 48 years old...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013174
This memorandum informed the FSM that he was 22 to 27 pounds over the weight standards prescribed in Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program). (3) ARPC 600-E which shows he served in the: (a) Regular Army from 1 February 1967 to 30 April 1971 and was credited with 5 good years for retirement (50 or more retirement points per year). * 1 May 1971 to 30 April 1972: 15 points * 1 May 1972 to 2 October 1972: 6 points (c) ARNG from 9 December 1972 to 4 March 1978 and was credited...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001959
In January 1989, the applicant was determined to be within Army Weight standards and he was allowed to enlist in the USAR. It provides that Soldiers who fail to meet the body fat standards set forth in Army Regulation 600-9 shall be separated under this provision when it is the sole basis for separation. The available evidence does not show that the applicant was ever physically unable to perform his duty or that he should have been separated for physical disability.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025142
His records show he underwent several unit weigh-ins during 1982 and 1983 and in each case he exceeded the weight and height table of Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program). On 7 February 1984, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of unsatisfactory performance. The evidence of record shows the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705738
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. Accordingly, on 6 December...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705738C070209
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. Accordingly, on 6 December...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706022
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. He states that he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9108000
Also, he now requests, in effect, placement on the permanent disability retired list, removal of the enlisted evaluation report (EER) covering the period September 1977-August 1978 as a partial basis for the HQDA bar to reenlistment, and the award of the Good Conduct Medal (6th Award). On 3 April 1989, the Board of Veterans Appeals, indicated that the applicant had active service from May 1970 to April 1972 and from December 1972 to March 1986; that the applicant had a transitory psychotic...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085590C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Disqualification for an award of the Army Good Conduct Medal can occur at any time during a qualifying period, requiring a new "beginning date" to be established. Despite his otherwise good record, it appears the applicant was properly denied the opportunity to be awarded an AAM or the Army Good Conduct Medal.