Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9712129
Original file (9712129.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That two adverse NCO Evaluation Reports (NCOER’s) and his local bar to reenlistment be deleted from his records, and that he be reinstated in the ARNG.
APPLICANT STATES : That he was barred due to the belief that he had threatened a superior NCO, an allegation which was later determined to be false. After his discharge at the expiration of his term of service, he was granted a waiver to reenlist. However, that reenlistment was later determined erroneous and resulted in his discharge. As for the two NCOER’s, during the time covered by the first report he was not working for his rater, and during the time covered by the second report he only worked for his rater for about 3 months.

 EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 October 1968, was promoted to pay grade E-5, served through a reenlistment, and was honorably discharged on 26 April 1974.

He had a break in service until his one year enlistment in the ARNG on 20 December 1982. He completed his enlistment and was honorably discharged on 19 December 1983. He again enlisted in the ARNG on 14 July 1984 and served continuously until his honorable discharge at the expiration of his term of service on 13 July 1991, having a bar to reenlistment in effect at that time.

On 21 November 1990 the applicant was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Desert Shield and was deployed to Saudi Arabia. The applicant completed his deployment and was honorably released from active duty by reason of demobilization on 8 June 1991.

The applicant was given an adverse NCOER;s for the period covering December 1989 to November 1990 and for period covering December 1990 to May 1991. For those reports his rater was the senior NCO that he had allegedly threatened. At that time the applicant’s position was listed as equipment maintenance clerk and the senior NCO’s position listed as motor sergeant.

On 9 July 1991 the applicant was formally counseled by a major for threatening the life of a senior NCO with a hand grenade while he was in Saudi Arabia.
On 10 July 1991 the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to bar him from reenlistment based on the threat he made. In response to that bar the applicant submitted a statement to the effect that he had been taken out of context, that he had never threatened anyone; that the senior NCO he was accused of threatening told him in front of witnesses that he had never threatened him; and that both he and the command would be better served if he were to be reassigned to another unit.

The applicant’s battalion commander then forwarded that recommendation to the brigade commander stating that the applicant’s performance and attitude during Operation Desert Shield/Storm was substandard. He had an argumentative personality that continually caused dissension in his section and, when he disagreed with his superiors, his solution was to threaten people. The battalion commander concluded that the investigation had proven that the applicant had threatened both his superior NCO and his commander.

The brigade commander then approved the bar, resulting in the applicant’s honorable discharge on 13 July 1991.

The approving authority for the bar then ordered an investigation into the applicant’s contentions. In that investigation the applicant admitted, in front of witnesses, that he had told the senior NCO that he should put a hand grenade in the senior NCO’s boot. The investigating officer also mentioned the allegation that the applicant had threatened to kill his commander during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. The IO summarized that it is not wise to assume a person making threats against another person’s life didn’t mean it or was just upset at the time. The IO then questioned who could tell if the applicant would carry out his threats or make other threats. The IO concluded that the command was not willing to assume the risk to determine the answer to those questions, thereby validating the applicant’s bar.

 DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1. All the evidence establishes that the applicant told his supervisor, a superior NCO, that he should put a grenade in his boot. That comment was made during a heated exchange between the two men.

2. The applicant does not appear to contest that he made that statement. He contests that the statement was innocent, such as “I should ring your neck” and, therefore, should not have been used against him.

3. The Board, weighing the statement made and the applicant’s contention that he was taken out of context, must side with the investigating officer. The applicant had the means to carry out his threat, being in a combat zone at the time he made the threat. Such behavior must be taken seriously by a commander.

4. As such, the Board concludes that the applicant’s bar to reenlistment and his resultant discharge are proper and there is no reason to alter those events.

5. As for the applicant’s NCOER, the applicant’s contention that he did not work directly for his rater does not negate the validity of the report. Therefore, the Board does not accept the applicant’s argument that the report should be deleted.

6. 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



                                                      Karl F. Schneider
                                                       Acting Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007602

    Original file (20120007602.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In part, the article included the following allegations: a. A review of his record shows the GOMOR is filed in the performance section of his AMHRR. c. Documents in the restricted section are those that must be permanently kept to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods; show corrections to other parts of the AMHRR; record investigation reports and appellate actions; and protect the interest of the Soldier and the Army.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150004596

    Original file (20150004596.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. A memorandum authored by COL C____ T___ to MG D____ B. A____, subject: Request for GOMOR, dated 11 July 2011, that shows he requested a GOMOR be issued to the applicant based on an incident on 26 June 2011, in which the applicant was involved in a verbal argument with his (the applicant's spouse) that turned physical when he grabbed her by the neck to prevent her from walking away from him. (1) It shows the rating chain as: * Rater: CW2...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110025075

    Original file (20110025075.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests correction of his military records to remove his relief for cause (RFC) Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER). The applicant was the unit first sergeant at the time.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150009778

    Original file (20150009778.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The IO stated: a. (3) Counsel states that SPC R______, SSG S______ A________, SSG R___, SSG A______, and SGT A____, were all interviewed and none of them saw anything improper going on during the combatives training. g. SSG A________ R___, who states that he witnessed the applicant tell both SSG T_____ and SGT W______ that they looked professional on civilian clothes day.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019972

    Original file (20110019972.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He stated: * The applicant was placed in the position with no formal training * Renting the armory was common knowledge throughout his chain of command * Contracts were actually being executed * CPT RM's allegations were based on hearsay; the applicant never made a false official statement * CPT RM was not in the applicant's chain of command * The applicant knew he should not have collected cash but he did as he was told by the previous NCO; plus all the cash was accounted for * The...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018360

    Original file (20110018360.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A review of the applicant's OMPF shows the change-of-rater report covering the period 1 June 2007 to 18 January 2008 is the report of record. A review of the company and battalion commander's records failed to reveal any derogatory information such as a reprimand in their OMPF's related to the contested NCOER. It is also noted that both the commander's inquiry and the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation concluded that the applicant was not properly counseled and mentored by his rating chain...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605277C070209

    Original file (9605277C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    During the investigation, two individuals told the IO that the applicant used racial slurs when speaking of the rated NCO, who was black. Based upon the 29 March 1994 SJA review of the NCOER investigation, the Commanding General (CG), 5th Army, issued the applicant a GOMOR on 15 April 1994. The allegation that the applicant used racial slurs in speaking of black soldiers was reported, but never investigated.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016644

    Original file (20130016644.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states he believes the NCOER is unjust because a Commander's Inquiry (CI) was conducted and the investigating officer (IO) stated that "he did not believe that my [the applicant's] conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the unit and was not in violation of Article 134 [of the Uniform Code of Military Justice]." d. Paragraph 3-39 states evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the official record of a Soldier are...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006754

    Original file (20070006754.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant also submits two Memorandums for Record (MFR’s), authored by the IO dated 16 June 2005, regarding the AR 15-6 Investigation and a false official sworn statement made by the applicant pertaining to adultery; four copies of MFR’s, authored by the IO dated 16 June 2005, regarding the AR 15-6 investigation and statements made by another Soldier admitting to adultery and making a false official Sworn Statement; a MFR, authored by the applicant's first sergeant dated 16 June 2005,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012295

    Original file (20080012295.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 6 May 1991, the applicant's immediate commander initiated a Bar to Reenlistment Certificate against the applicant citing his (the applicant's) poor performance on the APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test) due to having three consecutive APFT failures. Army Regulation 623-205 (Evaluation Reporting System), in effect at the time, established the policies and procedures for the preparation and submission of the NCOERs for corporals through command sergeants major. Army Regulation 623-205 also...