| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of her earlier appeal to correct the records of her deceased husband, hereinafter referred to as the FSM (former servicemember), by upgrading his undesirable discharge to an honorable or medical discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she is requesting that the FSM's case be reevaluated on the basis of equity under “Category G” of the Special Standards put forth in Giles v. Secretary of the Army (Civil Action Number 77-0904). She states that since the Army is now more accepting of the fact that some soldiers who served in combat suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), it is possible the FSM suffered from PTSD. She states she seeks justice and cannot rest until she finds it.
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 (AC97-11221) on 1 April 1998.
The applicant submits a statement detailing her contentions and a copy of a newspaper article indicating that military doctors are paying closer attention to the mental health of American troops in Afghanistan. Her contentions are new argument that require Board consideration.
The FSM enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 19 January 1968 for a period of 2 years. Trained as an artilleryman, he served in Vietnam from 20 June 1968 to 17 June 1969 with Battery B, 6th Battalion 29th Artillery, 4th Infantry Division.
On 23 July 1969, the FSM was reassigned to Battery C, 3rd Battalion, 30th Artillery, Fort Sill, Oklahoma. On 30 December 1969, he appeared before the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma where he pled guilty to theft of Government property. In accordance with his plea, he was found guilty and placed on 2 years' probation. Following his conviction, the FSM's chain of command initiated administrative separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for a civil court conviction. The administrative separation action was approved and the FSM was separated with an Undesirable Discharge (UD) on 11 February 1970.
The Special Standards Provision referenced above by the applicant states that, pursuant to the 27 November 1979 order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Giles v. Secretary of the Army (Civil Action No. 77-0904), a former Army soldier is entitled to an honorable discharge if a less than honorable discharge was issued to the soldier on or before 27 November 1979 in an administrative proceeding in which the Army introduced evidence developed by or as a direct or indirect result of compelled urinalysis testing administered for
the purpose of identifying drug abusers (either for the purposes of entry into a treatment program or to monitor progress through rehabilitation or follow-up). Applicants who believed that they fell within the scope of this provision were told to place the term 'CATEGORY G' in block 11b of DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record).
Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for this Board. It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within 1 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) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.
The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than 1 year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case. In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision. If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board. If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.
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 Special Standards Provision found in the 27 November 1979 order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Giles v. Secretary of the Army is not applicable to the applicant's case. The FSM was separated by reason of a civil court conviction, not as a direct or indirect result of compelled urinalysis testing administered for the purpose of identifying drug abusers.
2. The applicant has provided no evidence that the FSM suffered from PTSD or that his civil court conviction for theft was somehow related to his Vietnam service.
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
__jns___ __lem___ __wdp___ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2002079682 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030619 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19700211 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-206 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9008849
APPLICANT REQUESTS : That the Board reverse its previous action which denied his application for failure to timely apply, and consider the merits of the application. NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION : In support of the current request, the applicant has submitted the new contention that the Giles v. Secretary of the Army (Civil Action 77-0904) applied to him. DISCUSSION : After considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant with the current request,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019592
The applicant states: * his character of service is inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident out of 15 months of service with no other adverse actions * he was not represented by a lawyer * he was forced to sign documents while in custody without knowing what he was charged with or what a discharge in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) was * he was picked up one morning while in formation and told to come with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063773C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 6 February 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. On 23 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003805
c. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The evidence of record does not indicate the actions taken in this case were in error or unjust. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140003805 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140003805 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009762
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence indicating the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Based on the seriousness of his offense and in view of the fact that he voluntarily requested to be discharged in order to avoid a trial by court-martial that could have resulted in a punitive discharge, his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013604
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) characterization of service to an honorable discharge (HD). After consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. a. Subsequent to a legal review, the Staff Judge Advocate stated on a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100770C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 December 2004 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004100770 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 requests, in effect, reconsideration of his of earlier request to correct his record to show he was retired due to a physical disability with pay and benefits, in lieu of being discharged with a general...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061180C070421
d. Records show that the applicant was properly notified of intent to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, that he was afforded the opportunity to have his case considered by a board of officers and to be represented by counsel, that his case was heard by a board of officers, and that only after receiving the recommendations of the board of officers, did the appropriate separation authority direct the applicant’s discharge. The Board considered the applicant’s...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072980C070403
The applicant requests that the phrase "Drug Abuse" be deleted from Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and that his DD Form 214 be corrected to show all awards and citations earned, including four bronze service stars (BSS) in lieu of one silver service star, and the Vietnam Gallantry Cross (sic). On 28 December 1971, the applicant was assigned to the United States Army Drug Abuser Holding Center, Vietnam...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015593
If documentation had been requested, he would have known that his daughter was not an eligible beneficiary and by law he would not have been able to participate in the RCSBP. It requires courts to "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions" that are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." The Board concluded: * the member's military service records did not contain evidence of marital status (e.g., divorce decree)...