| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his records be corrected to show that he retired from the Army with 17 plus years of active military service.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was not allowed to retire with the years of service that he had. He loves the miltiary and has given the military some good years. He served his country with dignity. He served with honor and trained diligently. He regrets the mistake he made in his decision at the time of his pain and anger to take a drug; however, he served his country with honor and love. He not only damaged his military career, but also hurt his wife and children. He asks for forgiveness, that he be retired, or that his reentry code on his DD Form 214 be corrected so that he can enlist in the Reserve components.
The applicant provides a 28 March 2003 statement of support from a former comrade, who stated that he has known the applicant for 16 years, and that the applicant was very responsible, displayed good leadership skills, and a tremendous ability to remain calm under pressure.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum, dated 2 May 2002, prepared to reflect the Board's consideration of his request that his discharge be changed to a medical retirement or that he be reinstated or his reentry code be changed to one that would allow him to reenlist (AR2002067523).
The information in the applicant's NCO evaluation report for the 12 month period ending in May 1990 is as shown in the 2 May 2002 Board case. Additionally, that report shows that his rater indicated that the applicant showed little motivation or pride in his unit. His rater considered his potential for promotion or service in positions of greater responsibility as marginal. Both his rater and senior rater deemed his performance and potential as poor. His senior rater stated that the applicant constantly sought the easier wrong instead of the harder right, that he was an ineffective leader because of fear to discipline subordinates, and that he used misleading statements to superiors to excuse his mistakes.
The information in applicant's NCO evaluation report for the 11 month period ending in March 1993, is as shown in the 2 May 2002 Board case. In addition, that report also shows that his rater indicated that the applicant placed his personal desires above the needs of his soldiers and the goals of the Army, that he constantly used deception to avoid duty, and that he lacked self discipline, courage, and integrity. His rater considered his potential as marginal. Both his rater and senior rater considered his overall performance and potential as poor. His senior rater stated that he consistently used poor judgment, that his personal misconduct was a disgrace to the NCO Corps, and that he demonstrated no potential for future military service and should be discharged immediately.
Army Regulation 635-200 implements 10 USC 3914 (twenty-year retirement law), and states in pertinent part that a soldier of the Regular Army who has completed 20 years of active Federal service may, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Army, be retired at his request.
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. Notwithstanding the applicant's statement and the statement of support he has received, there is insufficient reason to grant an exception to the twenty-year retirement law. Nor is there reason to grant his request to change his reentry code. That issue was properly addressed in the 2 May 2002 Board case.
2. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.
3. 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.
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
__JHL __ __RKS __ __JTM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003089945 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030717 |
| 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. | 136.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511133C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of appropriate military records to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code which would allow enlistment. (2) On this EER, the rater stated that the applicant needed to improve his leadership abilities. A notification was sent on 14 October 1988 by the authorities at the U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (USAEREC) to the applicant advising him of the HQDA imposed bar to reenlistment, and of his options.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708811
The report was changed to show the correct report period; this report the applicant refused to sign. Evidence in the records also shows the applicant received an NCO-ER for the period June 1991 through May 1992 which gave him three “success” and two “needs some improvement” ratings, the rater marking his overall potential for promotion as “marginal,” the senior rater marking his overall performance as “poor” and his overall potential for promotion as “fair.” The applicant does not contest...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060352C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant has not submitted any evidence, nor is there any evidence or indication in the applicant’s records, that the applicant’s rater for the applicant’s NCOER for the period covering August 1993 through July 1994 altered her NCOER or that his rating of her was retaliatory or based on any form of discrimination against the applicant. The reason why the applicant’s...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708811C070209
The report was changed to show the correct report period; this report the applicant refused to sign. Evidence in the records also shows the applicant received an NCO-ER for the period June 1991 through May 1992 which gave him three success and two needs some improvement ratings, the rater marking his overall potential for promotion as marginal, the senior rater marking his overall performance as poor and his overall potential for promotion as fair. The applicant does not contest...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070906C070402
On 14 September 1999 the applicant’s battalion commander counseled the applicant concerning her bar to reenlistment, informing her that she had three options in response to the notification of her bar – (1) appeal the action, which had to be submitted through her chain of command in sufficient time to arrive at EREC (Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center) not later than 60 days from 14 September 1999, and if her appeal was not submitted within 45 days to her commander, she would be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001470
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests removal of a DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the period June 2001 through November 2001 from the performance section of his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) (formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File). The NCOER in question is properly filed in his military records in accordance with the governing regulation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007971
The applicant requests the removal from her Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) of two of her DA Forms 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the rating periods 1 April through 30 November 2008 (8 rated months) and 1 December 2008 through 25 March 2009 (4 rated months), referred to hereafter as the first contested NCOER and the second contested NCOER, respectively. These blocks, in part, contained the following comments: * derelict in her duties; regularly...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9611243C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his record be corrected to show he was honorably discharged and that the authority and reason be changed, specifically, item 25 (Separation authority); 26 (separation code); 27 (reentry code); and, 28 (narrative reason for separation) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 29 April 1991. In support of his allegations, the applicant furnished copies of military documents which mostly reflect his service prior to the period in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086524C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the noncommissioned officer evaluation report covering the period 990501 [1 May 1999] thru 000131 [31 January 2000] be removed from her military records; that her removal from active duty pursuant to the QMP (Qualitative Management Program) be set aside; that her RE Code be changed from "4" to RE Code "1" on the grounds that she was fully qualified for reenlistment in the Army; and that she be retired pursuant to the provisions of the Temporary Early...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023919
In a self-authored memorandum to the Board, dated 13 October 2010, the applicant states his rater did not sign in to the battalion until late July 2005, which is almost 4 months after the beginning of the first rating period and does not coincide with his counseling periods. His rater and senior rater were the same as the relief for cause NCOER. The applicant has not submitted any evidence to support his contentions that: a. his battalion commander directed his relief; b. his rater did not...