| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, and his Army Achievement Medal certificate be corrected to show his new name. He also requests reconsideration of his request to change his reentry (RE) code so he can reenlist.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he changed his name in January 2000 and he would like his DD Form 214 and his Army Achievement Medal certificate to reflect his new name. Also, his discharge orders state that he would be ineligible for reenlistment for 7 years. That time has now passed and he would like an RE code that would enable him to reenlist. He provides his DD Form 214 as supporting evidence. He states that he includes the page of his military discharge orders which state he would only be ineligible for reenlistment for a period of 7 years but it was not attached to the application. He states the original is in his records.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his request to change his RE code on 29 July 1998.
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 February 1993 under the name B___ H___ G___, III. All documents, to include the Army Achievement Medal certificate dated 1 August 1994, in his records show his name as B___ H___ G___ or B___ H___ G___, III.
The 20 June 1994 memorandum in which the applicant acknowledged that he was advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action erroneously indicated he would be ineligible to apply for enlistment for a period of 2 years after discharge.
Orders 179-27, Headquarters, National Training Center and Fort Irwin dated 28 June 1994 do not indicate how long the applicant’s ineligibility for reenlistment period is.
The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged on 15 July 1994 under the name of B___ H___ G___, III with an RE code of 4.
The applicant provides a certificate of name change dated 28 January 2000 showing his name was changed to J___ W___ A___.
Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214. In pertinent part it states that the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the soldier’s most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement or discharge.
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. For historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records. The data and information contained in those records should actually reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created. In the absence of a showing of material error or injustice, this Board is reluctant to recommend that those records be changed.
2. Although the applicant changed his name to J___ W___ A___ in January 2000, he appropriately served on active duty and was discharged under the name B___ H___ G___. While the Board understands the applicant’s desire to have the records changed, it finds no basis for compromising the integrity of the Army’s records. This Board action will be filed in his military records so a record of his current name will be on hand.
3. The overall merits of the applicant’s request to change his RE code, including the latest submissions and arguments, are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision. Although one document erroneously indicated he would be ineligible to reenlist for a period of 2 years, considering the reason for his discharge the nonwaivable disqualification and its attendant RE code of 4 was and still is appropriate.
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
__tsk___ __fne___ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062819 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020110 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.01 |
| 2. | 100.03 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077461C070215
The office did not have then nor did it later have any rating scheme indicating that COL B___ was the applicant's rater or that COL W___ was the applicant's senior rater. The Board notes that AR-PERSCOM denied the applicant's OER appeal in part because he did not provide original or certified copies of his published rating scheme. That the contested OER for the period 7 July 1993 - 31 January 1994, wherein COL B___ was the applicant's rater and COL W___ was the senior rater, be removed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001501C070206
The applicant denied those charges and told the investigating officer (IO) Ms. A___ would do anything to get out of her Army commitment. Counsel states the statements by Ms. B___, SSG D___, and the applicant were taken in conjunction with an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation. Counsel contended Captain L___ investigated Kayla A___'s allegations against the applicant; however, there is no evidence of record and he does not provide any that shows Captain L___ investigated that allegation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001501C070206
The applicant denied those charges and told the investigating officer (IO) Ms. A___ would do anything to get out of her Army commitment. Counsel states the statements by Ms. B___, SSG D___, and the applicant were taken in conjunction with an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation. Counsel contended Captain L___ investigated Kayla A___'s allegations against the applicant; however, there is no evidence of record and he does not provide any that shows Captain L___ investigated that allegation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005393C070205
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 October 1989 and was honorably discharged, in the rank of SGT, E-5, on 23 October 1997, upon the completion of her required active service, after completing 8 years and 22 days of creditable active service. As a field grade Article 15, and since the applicant was a SPC, E-4, the applicant’s battalion commander could have imposed as punishment a reduction of one or more grades. Since there is insufficient evidence to show the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004460C070208
On 26 November 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge. She stated that she told the Department of Social Services at the time that the statements were not true, but they did not want to believe her. In that recantation, she stated that she had told the Department of Social Services at the time that the statements were not true.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064910C070421
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008429C071029
On page 1 of the 78-page typewritten report of this interview, LTC T___ informed the applicant: “You’re advised that you are suspected of the following allegations which we want to question you about: That you improperly relieved an Officer; that you improperly processed Officer Evaluation Reports; and that you reprised against an Officer for making a protected communication.” (page 9) Q. “If the 15-6 or any other issue was used as the basis for the relief action, we see no evidence that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055121C070420
Issue 54 was the fact that in the transcripts the board stated that she never denied being a homosexual. However, the Board also notes that according to the transcripts CSM M___ testified that PFC A___ was not the applicant’s subordinate. The Board concludes that there was no evidence at the time of the board hearing and she has provided no evidence now to overcome the conclusion that she did make and sign the 6 May 1982 Sworn Statement in which she admitted to homosexual activity.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006372
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). She was authorized to both request and receive supplies for their office. The applicant informed them that those (i.e., whatever was in the boxes on the pallets) were National Guards property.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086015C070212
The applicant requests that her noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) for the period May 1991 through September 1991 be removed from her records, that she receive the promotions that were denied her due to the unjust rating, and, in effect, that she be granted a 30-year retirement. The Board has considered the applicant's further requests that she receive the promotions that were denied her due to the unjust rating, and, in effect, that she be granted a 30-year retirement. The...