| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
2. The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous application to correct his military records by upgrading his discharge. He also asks to appear before the Board in a formal hearing.
3. The applicant states “I am disabled presently and go to Tuskegee VA hospital for help with my disability problem. I am also a volunteer at the Tuskegee hospital, helping other veterans to get to and from their appointments.” He provides the names of people he helps while doing this volunteer work at the local Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital. In effect, he contends that post service factors should be considered in reviewing his case.
4. The Memorandum of Consideration (MOC) of the Board’s 1 February
2001 review of his request (AR200046297) is incorporated herein by reference as if wholly set forth.
5. The applicant’s submission is new argument that requires Board consideration.
6. Associated with the original application are testimonial letters that were mentioned but not described in the MOC. The applicant simply included them without offering any suggestion of a post-service argument. Because he currently raises this issue, those letters are evidence that should also be considered.
7. The testimonial letters comprise the following:
A minister states that he has known the applicant personally for 10 years. He writes that the applicant is of sound moral character and exemplifies Christian behavior. He works at the VA’s Incentive Therapy Program where he has earned the respect of his peers.
The manager of the Central Alabama VA Center’s Voluntary and Recreation Services writes that the applicant has been a volunteer driver since February 2000. He has to deal with many types of personalities and many types of ailments. He accepts these responsibilities readily and without complaint. On two occasions he has used his own money to buy fuel for the van.
8. The original MOC reflects the applicant’s first enlistment as 2 years, 9 months and 20 days with a single nonjudicial punishment that reduced him to pay grade E-3 on 11 May 1978. He soldiered back and was advanced to pay grade E-4 on
1 March 1979. Following his 3 October 1979 reenlistment the applicant served without incident until his first absence without leave (AWOL) on 13 May 1980. This was to prove the beginning of a series of AWOLs that ultimately resulted in his bad conduct discharge.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant indicates that he is receiving some kind of help from the VA. However, his bad conduct discharge would bar him from receiving a disability compensation award.
2. The Board notes that the applicant served almost 2 years and 10 months of his initial 3-year enlistment before re-enlisting. Additionally, his behavior was offense free for another 7 months after his re-enlistment. This significant period of service, more than his initial enlistment, taken together with the evidence of his post service volunteer service to other veterans indicates that the current situation is now unjust.
3. The applicant was responsible for the misconduct that led to the bad conduct discharge and the discharge should not be changed, but the applicant should be credited with completion of his first enlistment with an appropriate characterization. Therefore his 2 October 1979 discharge should be considered a complete and unconditional separation.
4. The Board does not normally investigate cases. Each applicant has the responsibility to obtain the evidence to substantiate his or her own request. The Board will not contact the individuals the applicant listed.
5. There is no statutory or regulatory right to a formal hearing. The Board receives over 15,000 applications each year, but normally grants only approximately 20 formal hearings a year. Formal hearings are granted only when it is determined that a case is so complex, or the records so incomplete that only sworn testimony can provide the necessary information.
6. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, correcting the applicant’s records as recommended below would rectify an injustice.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was issued a complete and unconditional honorable discharge on 2 October 1979.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
__CLA__ ___AAO__ __HBO_ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
__Celia L. Adplphi_____
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
| CASE ID | AR2001058307 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011030 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | MODIFY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 105.01 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055248C070420
The VA’s 12 January 1994 decision to grant service connection for schizophrenia was available for this Board’s original consideration of the case. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence had been submitted. The applicant has submitted no evidence to show that he was manifesting symptoms of, had a diagnosis of, or was treated for any physical, mental or psychological condition that would have warranted referral for a medical evaluation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057941C070420
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 | CY2002 | 2002070035C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 18 June 1980 (AC80-01791). The Board, in 1980, determined that the applicant's reenlistment on 16 February 1961, which ended with a dishonorable discharge, worked an injustice upon...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074935C070403
• Probative value of MEB, physical examinations and reports in a disability determination by the PEB and the ABCMR. The MOC, on page 6, notes that the ARBA medical advisor provided an AO; however, neither the AO nor the ABCMR MOC, discuss the overall effect of all, or some, of his ailments on his ability to perform his duties; pain as an unfitting condition; his VA and Army medical records; the postretirement report of examinations in the appeal that conflicted with Army MEB diagnoses, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009051C070205
The applicant states, in effect, that the Army is less likely now to punish individuals going through a divorce. The Board recommended the applicant's records be corrected to show he was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of his honorable discharge on 14 August 1977. On 11 January 1985, the applicant was issued Certifications of Military Service for his honorable service from 14 January 1972 through 13 August 1977.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079059C070215
The MEB summary, however, is silent regarding any other medical conditions, beyond the applicant’s hearing loss and wrist condition. While the VA may have determined that there was sufficient evidence available to them to provide a disability rating for the applicant’s nervous condition, there is no evidence in the applicant’s military file, which indicates that condition impacted on his ability to perform his military duties. While the VA is permitted to render a finding of service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071792C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The evidence of record shows the applicant was given a mental status evaluation prior to his court-martial and no evidence of a mental disorder was found. It is noted that the applicant was entered into the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Program around 9 November 1978 but did not admit he had an alcohol problem until around 16 April 1979, at which time he was placed on Antabuse.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605859C070209
At that time the other CID agent drew his service pistol and struck the applicant several times on the back of his head. On 27 March 1979 the Army Discharge Review Board denied a request from the applicant to upgrade his discharge. The applicant received a complete and unconditional separation on 12 February 1966 for his honorable service covering almost 2 years.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010821C071029
In the request the applicant submitted to the Board originally, he stated he was supposed to be discharged for medical reasons because of a back injury from a motorcycle accident, and that he was, at the time, trying to qualify for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. A copy of a DA Form 31, Request and Authority for Leave, in the applicant's service record shows he was allowed to go on excess leave pending approval of his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court- martial. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9307187
COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel concurs in the applicant’s presentation and requests that all reasonable doubt be resolved in the applicant’s favor. : 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. 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...