| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by changing the separation authority, separation code, reentry code, and the narrative reason for his discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was not the instigator in the homosexual incident in which he was involved – that the other individual involved had lied. He (the other individual) fabricated the tale in order to get out of the Army. He (the applicant) does not recall being advised of the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. He was misrepresented at the separation board proceedings, and betrayed by the NCO who was to testify in his behalf.
In a 5 April 2003 letter to the Board, he states that his first sergeant was harassing him, and was biased and prejudiced against him. He states that he signed the statement implicating himself, believing that he would only receive nonjudicial punishment. He states that the first sergeant was racist; however, the accusation would be difficult to prove.
In a 9 May 2003 letter to the Board, he implies that the first sergeant coerced him into making the statement. He states that there was no sexual contact between himself and the other individual. He states that he did receive letters of appreciation and was being considered for promotion; however, had problems with the physical fitness test.
In an 11 September 2003 letter to the Board, he states that he did receive acts of valor and achievement awards. He states that his first sergeant did not like him, and turned an accusation that he engaged in a homosexual act into a fact, making him confess. He states that his first sergeant induced an NCO to turn against him during the separation board proceedings, and that his defense attorney misrepresented him. He states that he cannot receive GI bill benefits or enter into the Reserves because of his reentry code.
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 (AR2002079622) on 19 December 2002.
The applicant’s contentions are new arguments that require Board consideration.
The applicant submits a July [2003] letter from an NCO attesting to the applicant's good character, stating that he was a good soldier, dedicated to his work, who got along well with his fellow soldiers.
He submits a copy of a 9 July 2003 letter from a pastor of a church in El Paso, Texas, in which that person states that the applicant attends church regularly, and that he would be an asset to the Army.
Included with the applicant's request is a copy of documents showing that he was awarded the Army Achievement Medal and three certificates of achievement. He also included a copy of a certificate showing that he completed basic training and completed an automated logistical specialist course.
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) 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.
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's contentions that he was unfairly and unjustly treated are not borne out by any evidence submitted. The evidence considered by the 19 December 2002 Board clearly shows that the applicant admitted to engaging in a homosexual act, that his case was fairly considered by a board of officers, and that he was discharged in accordance with applicable regulations.
2. The Board notes the applicant's commendable performance of duty as reflected by the award of the Army Achievement Medal and his certificates of appreciation. The Board also has taken cognizance of the support he has received, one from an NCO, and the other from a pastor in El Paso. None of these factors however, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.
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 order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.
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
__KAN __ ___LE _ __JTM __ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2003085707 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031002 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001712
The commander's separation memorandum (as stated by the applicant in his statement, above), is erroneous and not supported by evidence. There is no evidence of previous counseling with respect to homosexual conduct, which the applicant was advised of by the commander for the first time on 31 October 2005. The evidence of record also shows the applicant received mental health, behavioral counseling, and family counseling.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050018069C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests removal of a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15 UCMJ) and associated documents including the Relief for Cause Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) and his removal from drill sergeant status. Paragraph 6-7 states that substantive appeals must be submitted within 5 years of the NCOER's completion date.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081670C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS : That his discharge be upgraded. These soldiers stated that they had seen and/or participated in homosexual acts with the applicant.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071622C070402
He explained that the accuser had made the allegations after her rater (CW2) had counseled her on her conduct towards himself. On 1 December 2000, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation recommending that the applicant appear before a Show Cause Board based on his conduct as an officer and the substantiated investigation. Other witnesses refuted her version of the discussion concerning the applicant’s offer to strip down to a thong and perform lap dances for $20.00 and one...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002718C070208
The applicant provides: a. One of these documents was the Final Decree of Divorce which the applicant signed and returned. The Finance Office informed him that he was not entitled to BAH at the with dependents rate from 27 December 2002 to present and established a debt for overpayment of BAH.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002203C070206
However, none of the awards were recorded on his separation document. As such, that course would not be recorded on his separation document. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected: a. by showing in item 7a that his place of entry on active duty was El Paso, Texas and in item 7b that his HOR was 7049 Westwind, Apartment 3017, El Paso, Texas 79912; b. by showing in item 11 that he held specialty 91W20 for 10...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106902C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 January 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004106902 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 an undated letter of support from a church minister that stated that he has known the applicant for 12 years. The author further stated that, "Three of those years were in the United States Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008106
In support of his request, the applicant provides: * a copy of the contested report * a memorandum of support from his rater during the time period of the contested report * two DA Forms 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) * eight NCOER's ranging from 1 January 2001 through 21 November 2008 * a series of tabs which include professional milestones, worldwide service, awards and decorations, and comments from the troops * a copy of his Enlisted Record Brief COUNSEL'S REQUEST,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020202
The applicant requests reconsideration of his request for removal of a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) and removal/expungement of all records forming the basis of the GOMOR from his official military personnel file (OMPF) based on a court order. On 21 October 2004, the Commandant, USASMA, recommended the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's local military personnel file. Further, a Texas State court has no jurisdiction to order the Army to remove an administrative reprimand...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015404
Counsel argues three contentions: * the applicant's discharge under Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10, was not authorized because the summary court-martial which was to be convened to adjudicate the charges against the applicant was not empowered to adjudge a punitive discharge; the applicant was mistakenly advised by his defense attorney * the applicant was following the requirements XVIII Airborne Corps Regulation 612-10 (Personnel...