| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Patrick H. McGann | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by changing the narrative reason for his separation from Conduct Triable by Court-Martial to Secretarial Authority.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he had purposely withheld information when he submitted his application to the Board. This information had been “purposely withheld until I knew exactly what the Government’s position was and possibly be able to present this at a hearing.” Since he was not provided his “day in court” (formal hearing), he is now presenting the withheld information. This information is that the statement he had made to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) was not true. He had never remarried and was going to have his former wife testify to that fact. However, “There were extenuating circumstances why I would not reveal my marital status at the time. Since it was documented we were not living together, I seen no harm in providing the CID a statement indicating that I was married figuring the government would not pursue any adultery charges.” He adds that he later married the woman he was having the alleged affair with. The applicant continues that the only reason that his request for discharge wasn’t delayed until his medical processing was complete was retaliation over a letter sent on his behalf to the Secretary of Defense by a friend of the Secretary of Defense. The applicant also adds that his being discharged in abstentia was, in fact, detrimental to him. It precluded him from attempting to obtain an injunction to halt his discharge, or to withdraw his request for discharge and demand trial by court-martial.
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 (AR2001062250) on 20 December 2001.
In support of his request for reconsideration he submits his 30 June 1986 divorce decree, a marriage certificate dated 1 April 1992, medical records, and his corrected separation document which reflected the Army Discharge Review Board action to upgrade his discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) to a general discharge Under Honorable Conditions (UHC).
Army Regulation 635-120, paragraph 2-4, Withdrawal of resignation, states that an officer may withdraw his request for resignation or discharge at any time prior to commencing travel pursuant to orders issued for the purpose of separating him. However, the request to withdraw a request for discharge or resignation must be approved by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA).
The Manual for Court-Martial, Appendix 12, Maximum Punishment Chart, Article 92, Failure to obey general order or regulation, lists the maximum allowable punishment for this offense as a Dishonorable or Bad Conduct Discharge, 2 years confinement, and a total forfeiture of pay.
Army Regulation 15-185, Army Board for Correction of Military Records, paragraph 2-11, states “Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires.”
The applicant’s contentions are new argument 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:
1. The applicant has based his request for reconsideration on the previously withheld fact that he lied on the sworn statement he gave to the CID.
2. The applicant is now attesting that he never remarried his wife after their divorce.
3. Since the applicant initially said he had remarried and now says he never remarried, the Board is unable to ascertain which time he lied. As such, the Board must discount his statement that he never remarried his wife.
4. However, even if the applicant were to have submitted documentation to substantiate that claim, it would not result in the Board recommending it reverse it previous denial. The applicant committed serious misconduct in the compromise and mishandling of classified documents. That, in of itself, was sufficient to warrant trial by court-martial.
5. As for the applicant’s statement that he would have withdrawn his request for discharge if he had not been discharged in abstentia, he could not have done that in accordance with governing Army regulations without the consent of HQDA. There is no indication that HQDA would have allowed the applicant to withdraw his request for discharge.
6. There is no evidence to support the applicant’s contention that the acceptance of a request for discharge that he, himself, submitted, was due to retaliation.
7. As for being provided a “day in court,” he was offered this when court-martial charges were preferred against him, which he declined. He is not entitled to a “day in court” (formal hearing) under the regulation which governs the Board.
8. 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.
9. 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
___sac__ ___rwa __ ___phm _ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2002082817 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030403 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074561C070403
In July 2000, the applicant requested early retirement since PERSCOM denied his request to withdraw his unqualified resignation. Notwithstanding the language used, the Board’s primary reason for denying relief was that the applicant’s early retirement request and unqualified resignation request had been properly and equitably processed by PERSCOM in accordance with applicable law and regulation, and that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to the contrary. The Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058549C070421
He reports that “…a number of witness who could sustain the facts in favor of Captain [the applicant] who were never interviewed or given the opportunity to testify….” He recommends “in the strongest terms” that the applicant be re-appointed as a captain with longevity and all benefits. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054223C070420
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: The evidence of record disclosed that the applicant rendered a sworn statement and an affidavit, both of which he knew to be false, indicating that a fraud investigator from MBNA America...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001434
Counsel provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Counsel's request for information from the Department of the Army under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) * Letter from the FOIA Program Manager to the applicant's counsel * Complete Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Board of Officers) investigation with allied documents and legal review * Notification of the Initiation of Elimination Action * Army Discharge Review Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013760
Counsel states: a. The evidence of record shows the BOI, after considering the evidence presented, including evidence and argument from his counsel, found the government had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant: a. But, even without the compelling nature of the DNA result, it remains true that every statement 1LT AM made asserted that she had sexual intercourse with the applicant and that the applicant admitted to the adultery at the GOMOR hearing before MG C....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072695C070403
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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091524C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant’s request that the Board review the evidence of record and determine for itself whether his command proved that he was guilty of the charges preferred against him beyond a reasonable doubt and whether he was denied due process must also be addressed.
He also requests that the Board remove a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) from his record. The acting hospital commander refused to sign his application on the grounds that he was a subject of a command directed investigation. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting his release from his Palace Chase contract and resignation from the Air Force; and the Air Force pay him $2,326.90.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025355
His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. On 9 July 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. He has provided no evidence or a convincing argument to show his discharge should be upgraded and his military records contain no evidence which would entitle him to an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010678
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. General Discharge Certificate (under honorable conditions) may be issued when: * unqualified resignation in circumstances involving serious misconduct * discharge because of serious misconduct, including misconduct for which punishment has been imposed, which renders the officer...