| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Terry L. Placek | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by upgrading his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was offered time in the stockade or an undesirable discharge and that he did not realize the consequences of the undesirable discharge. He also notes that he only had in his “possession a couple joints of marijuana.” He states he needs his discharge upgraded in order to receive VA benefits.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: The applicant submitted a request to have his discharge upgraded in August 2001. At the time, attempts to retrieve his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), in order to evaluate that request, were not successful and the applicant was so informed in a letter dated 18 October 2001. However, recently his OMPF was located and provided to the Board. A review of that OMPF revealed that an earlier request by the applicant to upgrade his discharge had been considered and denied by the Board in 1993. As such, the applicant’s August 2001 application was ultimately determined to be a request for reconsideration and his contentions were considered new arguments that required Board consideration.
Incorporated herein by reference are military records, which were summarized in a memorandum, prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case (AC93-06041) on 24 March 1993.
On 25 June 1970, the applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged that his commander had initiated action to administratively separate him (the applicant) from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. In his statement, the applicant acknowledged that he understood that “as a result of discharge under conditions other than honorable, [he] may be ineligible for any or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws, and that [he] could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life as a result of this action.”
The applicant’s commander cited numerous records of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and conviction by a special court-martial for possession of “one ounce, more or less, of marijuana” and communicating a threat to a noncommissioned officer as the basis for his separation recommendation.
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. The applicant’s contention that he was not aware of the consequences of his discharge is without foundation. The evidence confirms that he indicated he understood the consequences of an undesirable discharge when he acknowledged his commander’s proposed separation action on 25 June 1970.
2. The Board also notes that the applicant’s separation action was initiated not only because of his court-martial conviction for possession of marijuana, but also because of his numerous NJP actions.
3. There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that he was given the option of confinement or separation and the Board concludes that even if the applicant had been given that option it would not serve as a basis to upgrade his discharge.
4. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
5. 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 that requirement.
6. 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.
7. 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
__LLS___ __RWA _ __TLP___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064994 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020108 |
| 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. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064258C070421
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010618C071029
On 14 June 1971, the applicant was discharged, with an undesirable, under other than honorable conditions discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 after completing 2 years, 5 months, and 14 days of creditable active service with no time lost. On 7 December 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade. Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, that an enlisted member who was convicted by a civilian court of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069502C070402
The applicant submitted two applications for the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) and an application for the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 18 February 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, records show that the applicant received a special court-martial, was declared a rehabilitation failure by an ADAPCP counselor, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066813C070402
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board noted the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040001720C070208
The applicant's 26 October 2003 response to the advisory opinion is new evidence which will be considered by the Board. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel effective 23 October 1994. By letter dated 26 October 2003, the applicant responded by stating he could not have provided a copy of the 4 December 1996 OER since it was classified.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-1993-00674
For an accounting of the facts surrounding his previous request and the rationale of the Board's earlier decision, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit G. The applicant submitted a letter dated 13 Aug 07, requesting the Board reconsider his request for upgrade of his discharge. He states his general discharge and statement of service are not corresponding. Exhibit J.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090111C070212
The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to upgrade his undesirable discharge. On 16 July 1973, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Therefore, the applicant
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064185C070421
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. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074229C070403
There was no evidence contained in the applicant’s record at the time of the Board’s original deliberations to show that any of the drug charges against him were false or were based on the prejudice of any member of the chain of command. 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: The Board notes and carefully considered the applicant’s latest...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064911C070421
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. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is...