| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be restored to Sergeant (E-5), the highest grade he held.
The applicant indicates that the date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was October 2001. He states it would be in the interest of justice for the Board to consider this application because he did not know that he could make this type of request.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show that:
The applicant entered active duty on 16 November 1970. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 71B (Clerk Typist).
The applicant had continuous service from the date of his enlistment until he was medically retired in April 1986. His assignments included 7 months in Vietnam, two tours in Germany, 35 months and 24 months respectfully, and a 12-month tour in Korea. The applicant was promoted to sergeant (E-5), highest pay grade he held, on 10 November 1979.
On 3 October 1983, while serving in Mainz, Germany, the applicant acknowledged that the battalion commander was considering nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniformed Code Military Justice (NJP) for selling US Tax Free Goods to an unauthorized person.
The applicant consulted with counsel and waived his right to demand a trial by court-martial. He requested a closed hearing, declined to have another person speak in his behalf, and he indicated that matters in defense, mitigation and/or extenuation would be presented in person.
On 3 October 1983, the battalion commander imposed punishment consisting solely of a reduction to the grade of E-4 and directed that the DA Form 2627 be filed on the performance fiche of the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File. The applicant appealed the NJP to the brigade commander and the NJP action was upheld.
The applicant developed chronic mastoiditis and hypertension, which resulted in his referral to a medical evaluation board (MEB) and physical evaluation board (PEB) in 1985. The PEB found that the applicant’s conditions significantly impaired his ability to serve and recommended that he be medically retired.
On 14 April 1986, the applicant was medically retired and placed on the permanent physical disability list with a 50% evaluation, in pay grade E-4.
The Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) reviewed the applicant’s file on 9 October 1986, and in a unanimous decision held that the applicant’s service as an E-5 was unsatisfactory based on the two NJP actions. The first NJP is not of record but is reported as occurring 27 July 1976 for bartering of US tax free items.
Army Regulation 27-10 provides policy for the administration of military justice. Chapter 3 provides that nonjudicial punishment is appropriate in all cases involving minor offenses in which non-punitive measures are considered inadequate or inappropriate. It is a tool available to commanders to correct, educate and reform offenders whom the commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; to preserve a member's record of service from unnecessary stigma by record of court-martial conviction; and to further military efficiency by disposing of minor offenses in a manner requiring fewer resources than trial by court-martial. The imposing commander is not bound by the formal rules of evidence and may consider any matter, including un-sworn statements the commander reasonably believed to be relevant to the case. Furthermore, whether to impose punishment and the nature of the punishment are the sole decisions of the imposing commander.
Chapter 3 of the regulation further provides that an NJP may be set aside upon a determination that, under all the circumstances of the case a clear injustice has resulted. A clear injustice means that an unwaived legal or factual error has clearly and affirmatively injured the substantial rights of the soldier. New evidence unquestionably exculpating the individual is a cited example whereas the fact that a soldier's subsequent performance has been exemplary or that the punishment adversely affects career potential is expressly excluded from the definition of clear injustice.
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. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 9 October 1986, the date of the AGDRB decision. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 9 October 1989.
The application is dated 19 October 2001 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.
DETERMINATION: The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law. Prior to reaching this determination the Board looked at the applicant's entire file. It was only after all aspects of his case had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of his record that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it would have recommended relief in spite of the applicant's failure to submit his application within the three-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__AAO __ __HOF__ __TEO __ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064259 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020430 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | Deny |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 129.06 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040001245C070208
It states, in pertinent part, that retired soldiers are entitled to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade they held and in which they satisfactorily served on active duty when their active service plus service on the retired list totals 30 years. There is no such evidence of a fatal legal or factual error that would support setting aside the punishment imposed on the applicant, to include the reduction now in question. Advancement under this provision of the law is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020058
The applicant requests, in effect: * advancement on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 * a personal appearance before the Board 2. On 8 September 2000, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB), in response to his request for advancement on the Retired List, determined the highest grade in which he had served satisfactorily for the purpose of computation of retired pay was E-6. The evidence of record shows the applicant was promoted to E-6...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029882
His discharge orders show his pay grade as E-5. It further states that a grade determination is an administrative decision to determine appropriate retirement grade, retirement pay, or other separation pay and each case will be considered on its own merits. It states that each retired enlisted member of the Army who is retired with less than 30 years of active service is entitled, when his/her active service plus his/her service on the Retired List totals 30 years, to be advanced on the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075526C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The separation document issued to him on the date of his separation, 31 March 1987, confirms that he held the rank and pay grade of SGT/E-5 on the date of REFRAD. On 28 June 2002, the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) denied the applicant’s request for advancement on the Retired List.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073899C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 30 January 1986, the applicant was discharged with a BCD. There is no available evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board, for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026243
In addition to his OMPF, that board also considered a statement from the applicant dated 23 November 2003 in which the applicant contended that his punishments were strictly command influenced and that the AGDRB should advance him on the Retired List. Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice), in effect at the time, states that the decision to file DA Forms 2627 on the performance or restricted fiche of the OMPF would be determined by the imposing commander at the time punishment was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011624
The applicant requests correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show the highest grade held as specialist (SPC)/E-4 and relief from the 6-year barring statute in order to receive payment for severance pay at the rate for pay grade E-4. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) states to enter the grade in which the enlisted Soldier was serving at the time of separation in item 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank) and the pay grade in item 4b (Pay...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018204
The applicant requests that the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), imposed on 21 December 2009, be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). NJP may be imposed to correct, educate, and reform offenders who the imposing commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; to preserve a Soldier's record of service from unnecessary stigma by record of court-martial conviction; and to further military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012690
The applicant states the Army Grade Determination Review Board (AGDRB) considered information that was erroneously placed in his Army Military Human Resource Record (AHMRR) and has since been removed. He provided a memorandum from the Commanding General, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and Fort Campbell, dated 27 February 2013, wherein MG J____ C. M____ stated he did not intend for the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation to be placed in the applicant's AMHRR as an allied document to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001383
The applicant requests, in effect, the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 23 January 1986, be purged from the restricted folder of his official military personnel file (OMPF). The basis for any set aside action is a determination that, under all the circumstances of the case, the punishment has resulted in a clear injustice. While it is evident the applicant was allowed to remain on active duty and that he eventually...