| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by changing his term of enlistment from 2 years to 9 months.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he submits new evidence in support of his request.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the decisional document prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2001054499) on
6 September 2001.
Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR. It provides that, if a request for reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration. This includes but is not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.
The applicant’s submissions are new evidence that requires Board consideration.
The applicant submits a copy of his DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) along with a certificate of completion of Phase II-Legal Specialist Course on 2 February 2001, a certificate showing completion of Phase I Reserve Component Nonresident Advanced Individual Training Course of the Judge Advocate General’s School on 16 January 2001, and a list of start dates for the Legal Specialist Course.
The applicant contends that he extended his enlistment for 2 years to ensure he had sufficient time to complete the requirements for legal specialist training, at which point he would reenlist as a legal specialist and qualify for a bonus. However, the applicant was able to complete his training in three months, and wants the period of his extension reduced from 2 years to 9 months.
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. Even though the applicant submits documents showing the class start dates for the Legal Specialist Course, and the date he completed the legal specialist course, there is no evidence to show that his extension was based on his desire to complete schooling.
2. There is no evidence to show nor has the applicant provided documentation to show that his extension was in error, or that an injustice has occurred.
3. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments, are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
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
__AAO__ __RWA__ __KYF __ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2001064466 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020404 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 112.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054499C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Despite the applicant’s contentions that he completed the legal specialist course and that he extended because of the uncertainty of when he could attend phase II of the legal specialist school; the facts in the record show that he extended under a rule for those requiring a reentry code waiver. Additionally, the Board could not determine what legal specialist class dates...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060771C070421
In support of his application, he provides the following evidence not previously considered by the Board: a rebuttal to the 20 October 1999 ARBA legal opinion; rebuttal comments to both of the previous decisional documents issued by this Board; and three third party statements addressing his MPAP phase II academic record, the personality conflict that existed between he and the two MPAP course officials, and comments of a member of the Board of Inquiry (BOI) conducted in his case in regard...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001662C070205
He claims the regular ABCMR panel of three members received an inaccurate and legally erroneous presentation of the evidence for their decision, as reflected in the Record of Proceedings prepared by the ABCMR staff for approval by the three-member panel. He also claims there is no requirement or provision for additional approval by the CGSOC Registrar's Office, or any other body, and the regulation provides all that is necessary to receive the credit is for the course completion to be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064687C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant requests that he be retained in an active Reserve status and promoted to Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4); or that he be allowed to attend phase II of the food service technician (MOS 922A0) warrant officer advanced course (WOAC) or a comparable course in order to be eligible for promotion to CW4. On 17 December 1998 the Warrant Officer Career Center (WOCC) at Fort Rucker informed the applicant that he had the option of completing the nonresident...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078832C070215
The Chief, Special Actions Branch, Office of Promotions, PERSCOM, stated that their office had the authority to grant an educational waiver for an upcoming RCSB only and the request must be received in their office prior to the convening date of the selection board. The applicant did not request a waiver prior to the convening date of the 2002 board; therefore, their office denied his request. However, based on the fact that the applicant had not completed his military education by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064444C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 135-155 provides the military education requirements for officer promotions. He was considered for promotion to major a third time by the calendar year 2000 RCSB, that convened on 7 March 2000, almost 1 month prior to the course start date for his final phase of his officer advanced course.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065911C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Informal coordination with the staff of the Promotions and Notifications Branch, Office of Reserve Components Promotions, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) revealed that the applicant was considered, but was not selected, for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the 1999 (8 September 1999) RCSB because he did not meet military education requirements. The Board notes...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074856C070403
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: In the opinion of the Board, the applicant has failed to provide evidence to show that the AER in question contained a material error, was inaccurate, or was unjust. Although he did not appeal the report to the ESRB, his appeal and rebuttal was reviewed, considered, and denied by two NCO Academy commandants.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068123C070402
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. This regulation specifies that promotion reconsideration by a standby promotion advisory board may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error, which existed in the records at the time of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059264C070421
The applicant states that he completed a 10-week medical specialist course in 1999. The DD Form 214 that he was furnished at the time of his release from ADT shows that he completed a 10-week medical specialist course in 1999 and a 6-week practical nurse course in 2000. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was released from the practical nurse course after he failed four major exams.