| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | ||
| Ms. Marla J. N. Troup | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by upgrading his dishonorable discharge (DD) to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In the enclosed self-authored statement, the applicant again outlines his accomplishments during World War II. He further provides his version of the facts and circumstances surrounding his being absent without leave (AWOL) in the European Theater of Operations (ETO), and he asks that his discharge be upgraded based on his record of combat service during World War II.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2001065699) on 11 April 2002.
Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR. It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted. Given the applicant’s reconsideration request has been submitted within the one year time frame, the Board has elected to review his request.
The applicant was convicted by a general court-martial of being AWOL from
1 October 1945 through 2 April 1946, and his sentence included a DD. On
21 November 1946, subsequent to his confinement, the DD was executed and the applicant was discharged accordingly.
During its original deliberation on this case, the Board carefully considered the applicant’s entire record of service, which he now outlines in the self-authored statement he provides with this application, and his contention that he was in need of medical and financial assistance. The review of his service record included consideration of his combat service, including his accomplishments and the awards he received. Upon the completion of its evaluation, the Board concluded that the applicant’s service during World War II and his need for medical and financial assistance were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.
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 Board carefully considered the new argument presented by the applicant in his enclosed self-authored statement; however, it finds it does not provide new evidence or argument that was not available to the Board during its original deliberations in this case. In the opinion of the Board, the applicant has simply restated his original claims and expressed his dissatisfaction with the Board’s original decision in his case. While this is understood, it does not provide a basis for changing the Board’s original decision.
2. The Board’s original decisional document made clear that the applicant’s court-martial and discharge was accomplished in accordance with the applicable law and regulations in effect at the time. Lacking any new independent evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the applicant’s rights were fully protected throughout these proceedings.
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
__RVO__ __AAO _ __MJNT__ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2002075075 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | AR2001065699 |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/01/16 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1946/11/21 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Court-Martial |
| BOARD DECISION | Deny |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 30 | 105.0000 |
| 2. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068572C070402
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. This medical record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065491C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 26 August 1999 (case number AR1999019146). As correctly stated in the Board's 26 August 1999 consideration, the applicant is entitled to six awards of the GCMDL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087073C070212
In its original consideration of the case, the Board found that there was no evidence, and the applicant failed to provide any, which confirmed that he was wounded as a result of hostile action during World War II. By regulation, in order to support awarding a member the PH, it is necessary to establish that a member was wounded or injured in action, and that the would for which the PH is being awarded required medical treatment that was made a matter of official record. Further, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079930C070215
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. It provides that, if a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079538C070215
APPLICANT REQUESTS :Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by awarding him the Purple Heart for injuries suffered while he was a prisoner of war. There is no evidence in the available records that shows the applicant was awarded the Purple Heart or was wounded as a result of hostile action during World War II. Further, this Board also determined, after review of all the evidence in this case, that there is insufficient evidence upon which to base award of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054911C070420
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. It provides that, if a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088187C070403
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: 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 | 2001058474C070421
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 DA Form 1577 showing the applicant is entitled to the Purple Heart is new evidence that requires Board consideration. Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained while in action against the enemy or as a result of hostile action.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087084C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support granting the requested relief. However, the evidence of record provides no information on a second drug test, and the applicant has failed to provide any independent evidence to support this claim.