| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) imposed against him on 30 August 1982, be set aside and that all rights and privileges be restored to him.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that NJP was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from his commander (a major) to report the unit as logistically ready, when in fact it was not. He goes on to state that the Inspector General agreed with him that he should not have been ordered to lie, but he is not sure what became of their report.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 7 March 1975. He completed his training and was returned to his unit. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 9 October 1979 and reenlisted for a period of 4 years on 6 December 1979.
On 2 January 1980, he was ordered to active duty in the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Program for a period of 3 years.
On 7 April 1982, he was flagged for court-martial action. The DA Form 268 (Report for Suspension of favorable Personnel Actions) indicates that he was pending trial by a Bad Conduct Discharge Special Courts-Martial for violation of Articles 86 (failure to go to place of duty), 87 (missing movement), 91 (disobeying a lawful order), 107 (making false official statements), 121 (larceny and wrongful appropriation) and 134 (specific offense not specified in the available records).
On 30 August 1982, NJP was imposed against him for two specifications of failure to go to his place of duty, for missing movement with his unit, and for disobeying a lawful command from a superior noncommissioned officer. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, reduction to the pay grade of E-4 (suspended until 19 December 1982), extra duty and restriction (suspended until 19 December 1982). He did not appeal the punishment and he did not demand trial by court-martial.
On 1 January 1983, he was honorably released from active duty due to the expiration of his term of service and was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).
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 contentions have been noted; however, they are not supported by either the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record. Accordingly, it must be presumed that NJP was imposed against him in accordance with the applicable regulations, with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.
3. While the applicant may now think that he was unjustly punished, he was afforded the opportunity to demand a trial by court-martial, whereas he could have asserted his innocence. However, he elected not to do so and the Board finds 20 years after-the fact, that there is no evidence in the available records to demonstrate error or injustice occurred in his case.
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
___mm__ __alr____ ___kak__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002066316 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/18 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 281 | 126.0400/REM NJP |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072184C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 17 November 1981, his commander notified him that he was considering whether he should impose NJP against the applicant for being disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer. In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to set aside a conviction.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017810
A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows he was charged with one specification of being AWOL from 12 April to 17 June 1982. He indicated he understood if his request were accepted, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions. The record does not show and he has not provided evidence showing he was harassed by his company commander and 1SG.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078436C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 1 October 1982, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029871
There is no evidence in the available records to show the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Paragraph 3-7b of Army Regulation 635-200 also provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008041
During the period of August 2003 to March 2004, the applicant was counseled for a variety of offenses which included disobeying a lawful order from his company commander, being absent from his place of duty, missing physical training, being late for work, for making a threat to kill another Soldier, and for forging a noncommissioned officers initials to indicate that he had completed his command task testing. On 19 May 2005, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016173
On 6 February 1981, the applicant's battery commander initiated a DA Form 4126-R (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate). When it seems appropriate, a bar to reenlistment should be initiated even if the commander is aware that an honorable or general discharge will be issued for the current period of service or that the Soldier served honorably for a number of years. Army Regulation 140-111 further states that normally a bar to reenlistment should not be initiated against an individual during...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011262C070208
On 2 May 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions and that he be reduced to the lowest enlistment grade. On 4 August 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and voted to deny the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. The evidence of record also confirms that after consulting...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001230
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. However, there is no evidence of record which shows he was diagnosed with PTSD or any mental condition or alcohol abuse or dependency prior to his discharge, and he provides no evidence to show he has been diagnosed with a service-connected PTSD or other mental condition. _______ _ __X_____ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000082C070205
The applicant states, in effect, that he served 6 years and received an honorable discharge; however, his last discharge was under other than honorable conditions and he desires an upgrade of that discharge because it has been over 20 years since he was discharged. After reviewing all of the evidence and testimony presented, the ADRB determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable under the circumstances and voted unanimously to deny his request on 7 May 1982. The U.S. Court of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068280C070402
He concluded his statement by asking that the request be granted and that he be discharged with at least a general discharge. Accordingly, on 25 February 1982, the applicant was discharged from service after completing 6 years, 4 months, and 3 days of creditable military service. The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.