| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member | |
| Ms. Mae M. Bullock | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request to change the reason for his discharge from locally imposed bar to reenlistment, to medical. In a second letter, he also requests reconsideration of the denial of his request for his records to be corrected to show that he was enlisted in pay grade E-4, and promoted to pay grade E-5, and that he be given an enlistment bonus.
APPLICANT STATES: The Board made an error in judgment when it denied his request for a change in the reason for his discharge. As for his rank, he contends, in effect, that he had sufficient college credits to warrant enlistment in pay grade E-4. Once his enlistment grade is corrected, then his record should be further corrected to show he was promoted from pay grade E-4 to E-5, instead of pay grade E-1 to E-2, since that promotion shows that his proficiency warranted promotion. He adds that the Board did not consider the fact that he received an Army Achievement Medal (AAM), that he was a member of a unit which set a post record for individual training, and that he scored 298 out of 300 (he does not specify in what).
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's considerations of his case on 27 August 2002 (AR 2002072679) and 19 April 1989 (AC87-05547).
In support of his request, he submits documents pertaining to his Military Occupational Specialty/Medical Retention Board (MMRB), which includes his rebuttal to the finding of that board that he could perform his duties. He also submits documentation pertaining to his summary court-martial, wherein he was found guilty of three specifications of failure to go to his appointed place of duty. The documents provided show that the applicant was contesting the MMRB finding he was fit for duty because of severe pain he was experiencing from severe flat feet and moderate arthritis. He was contesting his court-martial conviction based on his contention that the only reason he did not report for duty was because he was in too much pain to do so. He also submits a copy of his AAM order.
In a counseling statement given to the applicant on 9 June 1986, it was stated that two noncommissioned officers (NCO’s) told the applicant that refusing to go to work would result in his being given nonjudicial punishment (NJP). The applicant was reported to have answered “OK.”
In a counseling statement given to the applicant on 10 June 1986, it was stated that the applicant arrived for work 1 hour and 15 minutes late, refused to work, and just sat down.
In a second counseling statement given to the applicant on 10 June 1986, it was stated that when the applicant was asked why he wasn’t at work, he replied that he would not go to work until a doctor examined his feet. The applicant was then told by the NCO to go to work until his appointment at the health clinic at 1500 hours. The applicant refused the order.
In a counseling statement given to the applicant on 11 June 1986, it was stated that when it was reported that the applicant refused to go to work again, the first sergeant (1SG) had the applicant report to him. The applicant told the 1SG that all he wanted was out of the Army and he wasn’t going back to work. The 1SG then gave the applicant a lawful order to go to work, which the applicant refused.
On 26 August 1986, the applicant was given a permanent physical profile for severe flat feet with arthritis, which was determined to have existed prior to his entry on active duty.
Army Regulation 601-210, Table 2-3, did not provide for the enlistment of soldiers in pay grade E-4. It did provide for enlistment in pay grade E-3 with advancement to pay grade E-4 after completion of a year’s active military service. To qualify for this option, the soldier had to have completed a minimum of 90 semester hours of an accredited college program of 4 years.
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:
1. The applicant was determined medically qualified to perform his duties within his physical profile limitations. As such, there was no basis for giving him a medical discharge.
2. The applicant committed many offenses punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which resulted in his acceptance of NJP and in his being found guilty by a Summary Court-Martial. Such conduct certainly warranted him being barred from reenlistment.
3. The time to contest the bar to reenlistment was at the time it was issued. The applicant did not take that opportunity.
4. The fact that he was discharged due to his perceived inability to overcome his local bar to reenlistment could not have come as a surprise to him since he, himself, requested that discharge.
5. As for his request to have his entry grade further corrected and be promoted to pay grade E-5, the applicant, by his own admission, had completed 80 semester hours at the time of his enlistment. He was 10 semester hours short of qualifying for enlistment at pay grade E-3 with accelerated promotion to pay grade E-4. In addition, he was barred from reenlistment prior to his serving a year on active duty. As such, even if he had been enlisted for pay grade E-3 with accelerated promotion to pay grade E-4, he could not have been promoted.
6. As for the applicant’s request for a bonus, he has not submitted any evidence that would show that he was eligible for a bonus at the time of his enlistment.
7. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decisions.
8. 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
___mhm_ ____clg__ ____mmb DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002081591 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002081591 |
| 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. | 108.04 |
| 2. | 131.09 |
| 3. | 128.05 |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010414
The applicant states: a. One, dated 16 March 2014, wherein Command Sergeant Major (CSM) DCM stated he met the applicant in 2010 when the applicant was the senior guidance counselor for the Baton Rouge Recruiting Battalion and he was 1SG for the Lafayette Recruiting Company. His senior rater stated the applicant refused to sign the NCOER, and he provides insufficient evidence to show he never saw it.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008183
His rater entered the following bullet comments: "unreliable Soldier who consistently failed to perform"; "misleadingly accused Soldier of an offense by withholding pertinent information, resulting in an unnecessary investigation of incriminated Soldier"; and "repeatedly failed to report for duty." Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) provides Department of the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions regarding an applicant's request for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082552C070215
In an undated statement, the applicant’s commander stated that when he asked the applicant why he disobeyed an order, the applicant stated that he was to be reassigned out of the unit at any time, so it wasn’t his responsibility to pick up weapons anymore. On 27 July 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his general discharge. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9507760C070209
His enlistment contract specified that he was entitled to enlistment in pay grade of E-3 under the provisions of Army Regulation 601-210, table 2-3, rule E-3, based on his education. When the applicant received a recomputation for promotion to pay grade E-6 and was only awarded 50 promotion points for the credits listed on the same transcript. Had the applicant properly received credit (75 promotion points for 75 semester hours) for his civilian education, he would have received an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066581C070402
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show he enlisted in the rank and grade of Private First Class (PFC), E-3. It is not clear why the applicant’s guidance counselor would have believed he met the eligibility criteria for promotion to PFC unless the counselor was reading the quality points (95) as the quarter hours earned (46 or 56). Since the available evidence shows the applicant earned only 46 or 56 quarter hours, he was correctly enlisted in the rank and grade of PV2, E-2.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008229
The applicant provides a copy of his enlistment contract, his DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet), and his vocational school transcript in support of his application. In a 30 April 2010 electronic mail message the applicant stated the following: * request reevaluation of the papers he submitted * he was accepted into the active Army under the ACASP * his enlistment contract shows the school was accredited; therefore, he was awarded the MOS 13. However, the evidence of record shows the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060610C070421
The applicant requests that her rank at the time of enlistment be corrected from private/E-2 to private first class/E-3. The evidence of record and staff advisory opinion confirm that the applicant met the requirements for accelerated promotion to the rank of PFC at the time of enlistment. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022020
He states the results of his NCOER appeal were provided to him on 20 March 2010. There is no available evidence showing the applicant requested a Commander's Inquiry regarding the contested NCOER. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) provides Department of the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions regarding an applicant's request for the correction of a military record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003855
It states * Advanced to: Specialist Four, E-4 * Authority: AR 601-210, Table 2-3, E(3) * Effective Date: 16 February 1987 * Date of Rank: 26 August 1986 * Under "Additional Instructions" * The applicant had completed 63 hours of college credit with transcripts attached * The Soldier has the right to submit a DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Records Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) to request correction of his effective date corrected...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087383C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 24 November 1986, the separation authority waived the request for a rehabilitative transfer, approved the recommendation for separation, and directed the applicant be given a general discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 25 November 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge.