| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Walter Avery, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his records be corrected to show that he was unfairly punished. In addition, it appears he is requesting that either the Board investigate the circumstances leading to his separation or provide him the funds with which to do so.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that just prior to his separation from the Army he was unfairly reduced in rank.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered the Regular Army on 15 May 1961, at the age of 19, a high school graduate, for a period of three years, and was stationed at Fort Bragg, NC until his separation. His highest rank held was sergeant.
DD Form 214 (Separation Document) shows that he was retained in the service for 20 days for the convenience of the government. On 3 June 1964, he was separated under honorable conditions, for expiration of term of service. His total active service period was 3 years, 3 months and 20 days.
On 19 March 1962, he was granted a waiver of time in grade for promotion to specialist for doing an outstanding job as a supply clerk.
On 7 April 1964, the applicant’s company commander requested he be punished under the provision of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (NJP), by the battle group commander. He stated that the applicant had continually shown disrespect and contempt to authority. He also stated that the applicant had made a false statement to a commissioned officer during an investigation involving the applicant.
On 13 April 1964, the battle group commander imposed NJP against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and for using disrespectful language toward a non-commissioned officer. His punishment consisted of reduction to specialist. The applicant acknowledged the punishment imposed and indicated that he wanted to appeal and make a statement. He remarked that the punishment was too severe for the circumstances. He had been in the 82nd Airborne Division for about 2 ½ years and was almost at the end of his enlistment. He felt he had the potential to become a career soldier, however the NJP imposed would be a liability if he continued his career.
On 9 May 1964, the applicant’s company commander submitted a statement to the effect that he considered the applicant a substandard soldier who should be barred from reenlistment.
On 21 May 1964, a member of the Fort Bragg, Staff Judge Advocate’s Office ruled that the punishment imposed on the applicant was legal and not excessive considering the offense. The applicant’s appeal was denied by the commanding general on 21 May 1964.
On 26 May 1964, he was convicted by summary court-martial for absence without leave, breaking restriction, and for being disrespectful towards his superior officer. He was sentenced to reduction to the grade of private, E-2.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and it is concluded:
1. The applicant while not specific appears to contend that he was wrongly reduced from sergeant to private, E-2. The applicant’s conduct during the months prior to his separation, though a relatively short period of time, tends to indicate that the general discharge he received was appropriate under the circumstances. Since the applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request and the record contains no indication that his rights were violated during the summary court martial, NJP or separation processes, the Board has insufficient grounds to make any corrections he requests or infers.
2. The Board’s function is to correct an error or injustice in a member’s military records. It is not an investigative agency nor does it have the authority to grant the applicant funds or materials so that he may investigate.
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 this 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
___rjw ___ ___kaw _ ____reb_ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059513 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011025 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.06 |
| 2. | 110.02 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003675C070206
On 3 June 1964, the applicant was released from active duty with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for expiration term of service. The applicant’s record of service included two nonjudicial punishments and one summary court-martial conviction. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075923C070403
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that about 1 year after he enlisted in the Army, he started receiving letters and phone calls from his brothers, his sisters and from the family minister regarding his father and mother’s conditions at home. After being AWOL for about 4 months, he realized that things were getting better and decided to turn himself in. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087795C070212
On 7 September 1982, he enlisted in the Army at Fort Dix, New Jersey, for 3 years in the pay grade of E-3. Title 10, United Stated Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, provides, in pertinent part, that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to set aside a conviction. Additionally, he was assigned a separation code and an RE code in accordance with the appropriate regulations and there is no evidence of record to support his contention...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070002873C071029
The resulting approved sentence was a BCD. Given his undistinguished record of service and the severity of the offenses for which he was convicted, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support clemency in this case. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072184C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 17 November 1981, his commander notified him that he was considering whether he should impose NJP against the applicant for being disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer. In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to set aside a conviction.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028265
On 30 January 1967, the applicant's immediate commander initiated a Certificate of Unsuitability for Enlistment/Reenlistment against the applicant. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or separated. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066397C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his records be corrected to show that he was never convicted of a felony. Army Regulation 27-10 provides the filing instructions for a Record of Proceedings of Nonjudicial Punishment (DA Form 2627). The applicant has not provided evidence to show that Army records show that he was convicted of a felony and while the Board cannot determine with any degree of certainty exactly what transpired in this case, after the applicant admitted to the offenses for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058616C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000802
The applicant requests, in effect, removal from the restricted portion of his official military personnel file, now known as the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), all documents related to nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to include a field grade letter of reprimand (LOR) issued based on the results of an Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) investigation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000730
On 1 April 1986, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant that he was initiating separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review...