| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Walter Avery, Jr. | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Member | |
| Mr. Terry L. Placek | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to reflect that he was not barred from reenlistment.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his bar to reenlistment was based on unsubstantiated charges. He was investigated for committing adultery with a student. The investigation revealed nothing, the charge could not be substantiated and he was exonerated. He presents the argument that adultery, in the military, is a crime; if he was guilty of adultery he would have been punished more severely than a letter of reprimand, filed in his local file. He states that he was exonerated and never charged; that the letter of reprimand and bar to reenlistment were based on perception. He would like to have this information corrected so that he may re-enter the military.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He last reenlisted in the Regular Army on 16 July 1993, at the grade of E-6. The applicant has no current military status.
On 11 December 1993, a DA Form 4126-R (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate) was prepared. It indicates the applicant received a letter of reprimand from the 262nd Quartermaster Battalion Commander on 7 October 1993 as the result of a Criminal Investigation Division (CID) investigation for adultery, conduct unbecoming a noncommissioned officer, and solicitation to commit an offense. It explains that the applicant had consensual sexual intercourse with a female private first class, a student in the applicant's advanced individual training class. The student admitted this to CID at Camp Page, Korea on 10 May 1993. On the same form, the applicant confirmed by his initials that he had been advised by counsel, did not desire to submit a statement in his own behalf, and would not appeal the bar to reenlistment.
On 4 January 1994, the applicant requested early voluntary separation. His expiration of term of service was 15 July 1996.
On 5 January 1994, the applicant's battalion commander forwarded the applicant's request and recommended approval. He further recommended that the applicant be provided an Honorable Discharge certificate.
On 13 January 1994, the appropriate commander concurred with the applicant's request and recommendation for approval of the applicant's request for voluntary discharge.
Accordingly, on 20 January 1994, the applicant was honorably discharged under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16 for non-retention on active duty.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 16 covers discharges caused by changes in service obligations; paragraph 16-5 applies to personnel denied reenlistment and provides that soldiers who receive Department of the Army imposed or locally imposed bars to reenlistment, and who perceive that they will be unable to overcome the bar may apply for immediate discharge.
Army Regulation 601-280 provides, in pertinent part, that soldiers, who believe that they will be unable to overcome a bar to reenlistment, may apply for voluntary separation.
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 contends that he was wrongly accused of adultery and that he was exonerated by investigation. However, the applicant submitted no evidence to support this contention. The applicant argues the fact that he received a letter of reprimand, instead of more severe punishment, is evidence there was no basis for the bar to reenlistment. The Board does not accept this argument. In addition, the applicant's records reveal that when presented with an opportunity to officially present any information or questions he chose not to submit a statement in his own behalf and agreed he would not appeal the bar to reenlistment. In addition, the applicant voluntarily requested early separation when he believed he was unable to overcome the bar to reenlistment.
2. 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 bar to reenlistment processes. In the absence of such evidence and information the Board must conclude that the bar to reenlistment was administratively correct.
3. 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
___jhl ___ ___tlp___ ___jns___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063139 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | 20020509 |
| DATE BOARDED | YYYYMMDD |
| 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. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009539C070208
The applicant requests that a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) be expunged from his Official Military Personnel Record (OMPF). The applicant has not done this. The CID investigation was not conducted to determine whether the applicant had committed adultery or misused Government computers; it was conducted to investigate allegations of computer intrusion.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019847
The applicant requests removal of the following documents from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR): * a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 4 December 2009 * a Relief for Cause Officer Evaluation Report (OER), for the rating period 1 July 2008 through 2 January 2010 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) 2. The applicant states: a. The GOMOR stated: a.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010337
The applicant requests, in effect, that his name be removed from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) database and that a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) be expunged from his official military personnel file (OMPF). The applicant was serving in pay grade E-7 at the time he was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ and the DA Form 2627 was filed in the performance portion of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013599
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. It appears that based on the information provided by the applicant and reflected in his official record, the applicant was properly titled for the offenses listed on the DA Form 4833. _______ _ X ______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605596C070209
After reviewing the evidence in the case as well as the applicants appeals/rebuttals, the CG recommended on 22 November 1993 that the findings and recommendations of the BOI be approved and that he be honorably discharged. Accordingly, based on the evidence submitted by the applicant and the evidence of record, the Board finds that the dismissal of the applicant from the CGSC was accomplished in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. Accordingly, the applicants...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051903C070420
Paragraph 34 references the incorrect paragraph dealing with his contention that he was entitled to be considered by a MEB and does not address the fact that he was granted VA medical compensation for his major depression immediately after his discharge. In the analysis/rebuttal of the DAIG Report of Inquiry the applicant contends that the timeframe used for his fitness for duty is incorrect, that the wrong paragraph of the applicable regulation was used, that the regulation was incorrectly...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070467C070402
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. The record clearly shows that he voluntarily submitted a request for immediate separation based on his being barred from reenlistment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011933
The applicant states: * the Board's denial of his request does not make any sense to him * he never stated he was sorry for anything he did in Iraq * he does not recall submitting an explanation for his request to upgrade his discharge when he approached M---- S----- for assistance * he requested to leave the Army because of a pending court-martial * after serving almost 4 years and earning the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 he was finally accepted to work with the U.S. Army Criminal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000833
A copy of the separation authority's approval is not available for review with this case; however, it appears that on or about 18 February 1988, the separation authority approved his request for discharge for the good of the service in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed he receive an under honorable conditions character of service. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084011C070212
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant requests that any information in his records that reflect sexual misconduct on his part, or that show that he stole from the government be expunged from his records. On 28 February 1995 the applicant's commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be...