| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request to upgrade his undesirable discharge to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That all charges against him were fabricated in order to promote racism and hinder all minorities by any means because there was at the time a practice in the military to bar all black veterans from any benefits. He was scrutinized while he was in Korea because he was under a medical profile. He had received fragmentation wounds to his eyes, hands, fingers, chest, face, and legs. He was discriminated against because he had pseudo-folliculitis. He was having a very bad time shaving and in each duty station, other than Vietnam, he was singled out because of his beard. In 1968, he was court-martialed for refusing to shave. He had a medical profile then not to shave. As new evidence he provides a summary of his military medical treatment.
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 6 September 2001 (docket number AR2001058201).
On 8 May 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of willfully disobeying a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer to get on the truck and move out for detail.
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. As noted in the original consideration of his case, the applicant’s record of misconduct while in Korea was not much different from his earlier record of misconduct. His contentions that he was earlier court-martialed for refusing to obey an order to violate his profile is inaccurate. He was court-martialed for refusing to move out for detail. His argument that he was being discriminated against while in Korea because of his medical profile against shaving is not convincing.
2. 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.
3. 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
__fne___ __rwa___ __pm____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067525 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020516 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19690722 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A50.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011390C070208
Michael Flynn | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge or an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015806
The applicant requests reconsideration of and/or correction to the following entries shown on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty): a. character of service other than honorable, b. misconduct commission of a serious offense, c. arrears in pay (53 days) (a new issue), and d. education benefit deposit made to Veterans Education and Assistance Program (VEAP) (a new issue). The applicant continues that: a. he was reduced in grade without being given the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062553C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The applicant was discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 on 26 August 1954 with an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015616
He was either ordered to the forward unit or back to his barracks. Counsel provided a letter from Mr. M____ E. P____, a former Soldier who served in the applicant's unit in Vietnam. Counsel's argument and the publications he provided suggest that the applicant asked his chain of command for medical treatment for his rash and for the reason he was transferred to a new unit and removed from jump status.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070400C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. Both requests were denied.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004052C070208
The applicant requests that the records of her spouse, a deceased former service member, be corrected by upgrading the character of his 1951 discharge to honorable as a matter of clemency. Counsel states that the former service member’s “successful rehabilitation, and integration into society” is demonstrated by the record and evidence submitted by the applicant and notes that the Board has previously acted to change the characterization of a discharge in such cases. In a statement...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070715C070402
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 | CY2013 | 20130008160
All were so assigned except one officer the applicant. On 28 August 2010, by letter, the Director of Officer Personnel Management notified the applicant that she was considered for promotion to LTC by the FY 2010 LTC JAG Corps Promotion Selection Board but she was not selected for promotion. Counsel asserts that the applicants assignment to the Environmental Law Attorney position at FORSCOM was an off "due-course" assignment.
CG | BCMR | Discrimination and Retaliation | 1998-035
[N]either of these two xxxx [sic] had sea duty time as a xxxx and both were closer to the [cutter] than [the applicant was].” Moreover, D. stated, in contradiction to Z.’s claim that the Xxxx required a female, a male xxxx was assigned to the cutter when the applicant chose to be discharged rather than accept the orders. has had on [the applicant]. Coast Guard records indicate that, apart from the applicant, six female xxxx stationed in Xxxx and xxxxxxxx were tour complete and had not done...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062250C070421
He was given a date of discharge of 4 June 1991. In any case, his resignation for the good of the service was forwarded to Headquarters, Department of the Army on 28 March 1991 and the AD HOC Review Board recommended the applicant’s resignation be accepted with a discharge UOTHC on 8 April 1991. His January 1991 physical was accomplished incident to retirement, discharge, or release from active duty (i.e., what he hoped would be a physical disability separation) and noted in detail his...