| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director, Army Review Boards Agency | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern III | Member | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by upgrading his discharge or by granting him retirement from the Army.
APPLICANT STATES: That he had received the Board’s decision denying his request that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded, but that he will continue to pursue his case. The information that he received concerning a sexual harassment charge was unwarranted, and he never received nonjudicial punishment at that time. Since his release from the Army he has maintained a decent job, raised a family and paid his share of taxes to the government. He is entitled to receive some form of retirement because of his commitment to his country. He did not murder anyone or lie under oath. The Board must give consideration to all the positive things he accomplished for his country. It would be a sense of betrayal that a couple of offenses could be unforgiving.
In a separate, follow-on letter, the applicant states that his request is reasonable and worthy of a second look. He served his country well for over 17 years. No crime of murder was committed, just that of larceny and forgery. Recently, a naval officer murdered a boat full of Chinese people, but was given a tap on the hand. His debt to society has been paid. He only wants an opportunity to have his records reflect differently than his actions at that time.
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 13 December 2001 (AR2001058447).
There is no new evidence or information, other than the information provided by the applicant as noted above.
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. While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's years of military service and his professions of good post-service conduct; none of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.
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
__JL____ __TBR __ __RWA__ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2002069091 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020709 |
| 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. | 189 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063812C070421
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: There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053293C070420
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: On 10 November 1971 court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 30 June to 28 October 1971, for being AWOL from 19 January to 2 November 1970; for being AWOL from 11 November to 9 December 1970, and for being AWOL from 13 December 1970 to 7 June 1971.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056907C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He states that during his military career he served in positions calling for a higher rank but he was never actually promoted. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was placed on the Retired List in the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6, which is the highest rank to which he was actually promoted, paid as, and served in while on active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058065C070420
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001058065SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED2001/08/30TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19860317DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, chapter 14 .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007771C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD), characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant states, in effect, that it has been 33 years since his discharge from the Army, and he feels he served his country honorably, and did his time for what he was asked to do. The evidence of record clearly shows that it has been over 33 years since he received his UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057773C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced on the Retired List to pay grade E-8. Title 10, United States Code, Section 3964, provides that a retired enlisted member or warrant officer of the Army who is retired with less than 30 years of active service is entitled, when his active service plus his service on the Retired List totals 30 years, to be advanced on the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065409C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her $20,000.00 Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) enlistment addendum be honored as written. On 18 May 2001 the office of the Chief, Army Reserve, denied her request for exception to policy and informed the applicant she could either remain in the unit without the increased SLRP, she could request discharge, or she could petition...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062843C070421
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: While the applicant states that he did not receive pay because his records kept getting lost, he has not submitted any evidence to support his allegation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076932C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Among other requirements, the individual must have less than 14 years of total military service, must not have previously been paid a bonus for enlistment, reenlistment, or extension of an enlistment in any Reserve Component of the Armed Forces, and must have been out of the military service for at least 12 months if previously discharged from the Army National Guard or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074362C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : No time or effort was taken by the personnel processing his enlistment to tell him which of his loans would and wouldn’t be paid under the LRP. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: