| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request to upgrade his bad conduct discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: That his discharge should be upgraded based upon his entire military service. He provides as new evidence a Cleveland Division of Police, General Records Division record dated 13 August 2001 indicating the applicant has no local arrest record on file and eight letters of support dated 16 and 20 February, 27 March, 11 April, 28 June, and 14, 21, and 23 August 2001.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 10 October 2001 (docket number 2001059884).
Army Regulation 635-200 states, in pertinent part, that characterization of service at separation will be based upon the quality of the soldier’s service including the reason for separation. The quality of service will be determined according to standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty for military personnel. The type of discharge and character of service will be determined solely by the military record during the current enlistment or period of service from which the soldier is being separation.
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. 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 this requirement.
2. The applicant’s characterization of service was properly based upon his sentence by court-martial, which in turn was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged.
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
__gdp___ __dsj___ __reb___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065581 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020326 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 105.01 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058860C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge was too harsh because other soldiers who...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060928C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS : Reconsideration of his request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to honorable. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056810C070420
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 applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057151C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: The ADRB convened on 30 March 1983; however, neither the applicant nor his legal counsel appeared.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062238C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The eighth statement is from one of the friends for whom the applicant was buying beer the day of the incident described by the applicant. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059650C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 31 August 2000, the applicant was recommended for a QMP bar to reenlistment. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058976C070421
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that a 28 March 1952 letter from the FSM’s division commander substantiates that he was entitled to the Combat Infantryman Badge. The submitted letter is new evidence that requires Board consideration. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064932C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The memorandum also stated that the ACR did not have the authority to make corrections to case records or perform case reviews as requested by the applicant. On 15 August 2001, the Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Officer, US Army CFSC, prepared a memorandum to the attorney’s request, dated 20 July 2001, to correct the applicant’s request pertaining to an assault charge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057934C070420
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’s submission is new evidence that requires Board consideration. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065448C070421
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. On 7 November 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.