Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009915C070208
Original file (20040009915C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          23 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040009915


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr.             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Marla J. N. Troup             |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that an record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for driving under the
influence (DUI) and an associated bar to reenlistment be expunged from his
records.

2.  The applicant states that his blood alcohol level was lower than the
legal limit. The civilian case was dismissed and expunged from the record.
The unjustified military record disqualifies him from a job in law
enforcement.

3.  The applicant provides no supporting documentation.  He states that
there are none because they have all been expunged.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 17 February 1989.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 27 October 2004.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant served on active duty for Army National Guard (ARNG)
initial training from 23 June to 16 August 1986 and was released to his
ARNG unit.  He enlisted and entered active duty in the Regular Army on 8
October 1997 and was stationed at Fort McClellan, Alabama.

4.  He received a 22 November 1988 NJP for absence from his unit and a
25 November 1988 administrative reprimand for a "constant pattern of
tardiness." He received another NJP, on 13 December 1989, for again being
absent from his unit.  The punishment included a suspended reduction to pay
grade E-3.  On 1 December 1988 restitution was required for writing a bad
check to the post exchange.  The suspended reduction  was vacated on 30
December 1988.

5.  The applicant was arrested for DUI on 3 February 1989 and a bar to
reenlistment was initiated on 6 February 1989.  The recommendation
mentioned the above incidents and several other counseling incidents for
being overweight, for missing formations and for failing or missing
physical fitness testing.  A 3 February 1989 counseling statement includes,
"I intend to begin action to separate you, not, for the alcohol-related
incident alone, but for your long, long chain of misdeeds."

6.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the recommended bar to
reenlistment, indicated that he had been counseled and advised as to the
basis for the recommendation and declined to offer a statement in his own
behalf.  The bar was approved by the battalion commander.

7.  The applicant voluntarily requested discharge because he could not
overcome the bar to reenlistment.  The battalion commander approved his
request and directed that an honorable discharge be issued.

8.  On 17 February 1989 the applicant was separated under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 16 covers discharges caused by
changes in service obligations.  Paragraph 16-5 applies to personnel denied
reenlistment and provides that Soldiers who receive DA imposed or locally
imposed bars to reenlistment, and who perceive that they will be unable to
overcome the bar may apply for immediate discharge.  Incident to the
request the member must state that he understands that recoupment of
unearned portions of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus is required and
that later reenlistment is not permitted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge
directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the
facts of the case.

2.  There is no indication that the applicant received NJP for the DUI
arrest and he clearly was not barred form reenlistment solely because of
the DUI arrest.

3.  The only evidence of record about the DUI incident states only that it
happened.  Even if the applicant had provided evidence to support his
contention that the charge was dismissed, that would not necessarily
warrant expunging the record of the arrest and it certainly would not
warrant expunging the bar to reenlistment which was warranted by the other
misconduct.
4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 17 February 1989; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 16 February 1992. However, the applicant did not file within the
3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation
or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_KAN ___  __WDP__  __MJNT_  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.





            _    Kathleen A. Newman_____
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040009915                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050813                                |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |126.01                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019586

    Original file (20130019586.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request to, in effect: * restore his rank of specialist four (SP4)/E-4 and sergeant (SGT)/E-5 * remove or expunge all injustices from his record, including: * Articles 15 (nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) * a letter of reprimand (LOR) dated 14 February 1988 * a police report dated 14 February 1988, concerning driving under the influence (DUI) * his bar to reenlistment 2. ...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017173

    Original file (20140017173.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states, in effect: * while assigned in a Field Artillery unit at Fort Riley, KS he was sexually assaulted by two other members of his unit * these two members also forced him to take cocaine at the time of the assault * he was threatened with physical harm if he reported what had happened * as a result of taking the cocaine, he became addicted and, subsequently, came up positive on a unit urinalysis test * when he came up positive, he was given the choice of either facing...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008981

    Original file (20100008981.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was accordingly discharged on 2 January 1990 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the offence for which he was discharged and is appropriate for the applicant's overall record of military service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011523

    Original file (20110011523.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant states he was having problems with alcohol during his time in the service. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003102

    Original file (20120003102.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 May 1989, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. c. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b by reason of a pattern of misconduct was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067352C070402

    Original file (2002067352C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. After a comprehensive review of his records, he was not selected for promotion and he was identified for a Department of the Army (DA) bar to reenlistment under the qualitative management program. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017130

    Original file (20130017130.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant states he suffered with a drug addiction during his military service. It appears that he was separated in pay grade E-4 and issued a general discharge based on his overall record of service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012761

    Original file (20140012761.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, there is no evidence that indicates that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 1997005492C070209

    Original file (1997005492C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, he is appealing the officer evaluation reports (OERs) for the periods 10 July through 27 September 1990, 11 June through 3 November 1991 and 4 November 1991 through...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 1997005492

    Original file (1997005492.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: While the fact that an officer is under investigation or trial may not be mentioned in an OER until the investigation or trial is completed, this does not preclude the rating chain’s use of verified derogatory information. The comment on his use of alcohol is authorized since it is verified derogatory information (he was arrested for DUI on 8 September 1991).