| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of her request for an upgrade of her discharge from undesirable to general.
APPLICANT STATES: That her discharge was unduly harsh punishment for being absent without leave (AWOL) for one day. Also, she does not recall any summary court-martial. She is a changed person now.
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 her case on 5 April 2001 (docket number AR2000047723).
A Charge Sheet, DD Form 458, dated 2 July 1963 charged the applicant with being absent from her unit from 5:00 p. m. 1 July to 7:00 a. m. 2 July 1963. She signed the form, consenting to trial by summary court-martial.
The applicant provides a 20 January 1999 letter from the Heritage Craft Center of the Eastern Panhandle, Incorporated indicating she agreed to perform 10 hours of basic woodcarving instruction; a 19 June 2001 letter from the Assistant Superintendent of the Martinsburg Union Rescue Mission, Incorporated; a 12 December 2001 letter from a secretary with the Martinsburg, WV Department of Veterans Affairs; and a 10 December 2001 letter from a retired first sergeant who has known her for 20 years as character witness statements.
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 evidence of record shows the applicant was not separated because she had one day of AWOL. She was recommended for separation for unfitness before she went AWOL because she was consorting with a known married man (before he was divorced and they married) and because she had been identified as being involved in barracks larceny.
2. The evidence of record shows that she consented to trial by court-martial.
3. The Board has considered the character witness statements provided by the applicant; however, they do not warrant granting the relief requested.
4. 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.
5. 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__ __MHM__ __DPH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002071685 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/16 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1963/07/09 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-208 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A50.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065106C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage (without the member’s agreement) in those cases where the retiree had elected spouse coverage at retirement or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP election. His spouse’s consent to his requested change was required before the SBP Board would consider granting his request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100197C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 July 2004 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004100197 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant submitted a copy of the FSM's pay account information, dated 6 December 1997, which shows that he elected SBP coverage for spouse and children. Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076386C070215
Counsel states that her petition was in fact submitted on 12 November 2001, within a year of the 12 December 2000 decision by the Board denying her original request. Counsel stated that the law states that if a servicemember is single at the time of retirement eligibility but marries before reaching age 60, he has one year from the marriage to elect RCSBP coverage for his new spouse. He stated that the unqualified statement contained in the 20 year letter to the applicant misstated the law...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060366C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the records of her deceased former spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he did not cancel his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage but instead changed it to former spouse coverage. Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage (without the member’s agreement) in those cases where the retiree had elected spouse coverage at retirement or was still on active duty and had not yet made an SBP...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067152C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the records of his deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show she enrolled in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) for option C. If the member was married but elected not to participate at the maximum level or elected to provide an annuity for a dependent child but not for his spouse, that member’s spouse would be notified of that election. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002956C070208
The applicant requests reconsideration of her earlier requests to correct the records of her deceased former spouse, a former service member (FSM), to show he changed his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) coverage from spouse to former spouse. Counsel states that the FSM's widow has now provided her consent to change the FSM's records. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing the FSM made a written request to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085882C070212
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The evidence of record shows the applicant married Bruce H___ after she enlisted in the Army and still retained that married name when she was released from active duty on 22 October 1962.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069041C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Public Law 95-397, the RCSBP, enacted 30 September 1978, provided a way for those who had qualified for reserve retirement but were not yet age 60 to provide an annuity for their survivors should they die before reaching age 60. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002563C070206
The applicant requests, in effect, that the records be corrected to show she made a deemed election of the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) of her former spouse, a former service member (FSM), in a timely manner. The FSM and the applicant divorced on 4 June 2004. Public Law 99-661, dated 14 November 1986, permitted divorce courts to order SBP coverage (without the member’s agreement) in those cases where the member was participating in the SBP or was still on active duty and had not yet made an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082594C070215
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 requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: