RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 17 November 2005
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050011543
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. G. E. Vandenberg | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. Lester Echols | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. John E. Denning | |Member |
| |Ms. Jeanette R. McCants | |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 all reference to a denial of the Good
Conduct Medal be removed from his records.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he had a Good Conduct Medal
pending when he was charged with felony assault. His command originally
denied him the Good Conduct Medal based on the pending court case; however,
when the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor he was awarded the medal. The
continued inclusion of the denial letter for an award he has received
creates an impression of impropriety and negatively impacts his future
military career.
3. The applicant provides copies of awards and recognition certificates,
memorandum related to a 1997 reenlistment, and documents related to the
assault charge and denial of the Good Conduct Medal.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The records show the applicant, currently a staff sergeant (E-6), first
enlisted in the Army Reserve on 23 August 1989. He entered active duty on
19 July 1990 and is currently on his fourth enlistment.
2. On 17 December 1995, civilian officials arrested the applicant on a
charge of felony assault and battery. He was held in civilian confinement
for 91 days until the charges were reduced to misdemeanor assault on or
about 17 March 1996.
3. On 18 April 1996, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was
denying him the Good Conduct Medal based on a "pending civilian felony
conviction".
4. The specific date of the applicant's civilian trial is not of record.
The available records indicate that the applicant was found guilty of
misdemeanor assault and sentenced to probation. The specific period of
probation ordered is not of record.
5. On 6 November 1996 the court directed that the applicant's period of
probation be terminated.
6. The 82nd Personnel Services Battalion, 82nd Airborne Division Permanent
Orders Number 114-21, dated 16 July 1996, awarded the applicant his second
Good Conduct Medal for the period 19 July 1993 through 18 July 1996.
7. Correspondence by a Senior Brigade Career Counselor, dated 16 December
1997, concerning his reenlistment relates that the applicant's previous
unit command had determined that the applicant had been wrongfully
confined. There is no evidence that he was ever charged with lost time.
8. The applicant's OMPF contains copies of 15 Certificates of Achievement,
and shows he has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal, the Army Commendation
Medal, five Army Achievement Medals, and four Good Conduct Medals.
9. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Records) states, in
pertinent part, that once placed in the OMPF a document becomes a permanent
part of that file and will not be removed or relocated except upon proper
authority such as the ABCMR. The regulation specifically provides that a
notification of disqualification for the Good Conduct Medal is to be filed
in the commendatory and disciplinary section of a Soldier’s performance
fiche.
10. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) paragraph 4-1 states there
is no right or entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal until the immediate
commander has approved the award and the award has been announced in
permanent orders.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's unit commander prepared the disqualification memorandum
based on a pending felony charge which was reduced to a misdemeanor.
Therefore, the reason for the denial is essentially unjust.
2. In order for the applicant have been awarded the Good Conduct Medal for
the period from 19 July 1993 through 18 July 1996 his unit commander, the
same unit commander who prepared the denial memorandum, or his successor,
had to have recommended him for the award he received in July 1996.
3. In light of the July 1996 orders awarding him the same medal for the
same period, the retention of the April 1996 denial letter for the Good
Conduct Medal creates an inconsistency that should be corrected by purging
the applicant's records of the 18 April 1996 memorandum of
disqualification.
BOARD VOTE:
__JRM__ _LE_____ _JED_ __ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by
purging the 18 April 1996 disqualification notice and all related items
from his record.
__ Lester Echols______
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20050011543 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON | |
|DATE BOARDED |20051117 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |Grant |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
|ISSUES 1. |107 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003071
It was determined that the applicant required a moral waiver for enlistment. It states, in pertinent part that a waiver is required for any applicant who has received a conviction or other adverse disposition for a serious criminal misconduct offense. The evidence of record further shows that the applicant's enlistment document together with all allied documents including his approved waiver are correctly filed in the proper section of his OMPF.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000550
Counsel requests an upgrade of the applicant's UOTHC discharge to an honorable or a general discharge and a change to his RE code to a "1" or "2." The board recommended that the applicant be separated from the Army with a UOTHC discharge. Neither the applicant nor counsel have provided sufficient evidence to show that the applicant's discharge should be upgraded.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050009232C070206
The applicant provides: a. The applicant’s request to have a memorandum, dated 19 November 1996 pertaining to denial of award to the AGCM removed from his records was carefully considered. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by removing Department of the Army, 2nd Battalion, 14th Infantry, Fort Drum, New York, memorandum dated 19 November 1996 and titled Denial of Good Conduct Medal, be removed from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021529
The applicant requests that the records of her husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected by upgrading his general discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). He stated he had not forced the victim into C____'s car or committed any assault upon her. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldiers overall record.
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600934
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Decisional Issues Equity – Isolated incident Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20010327 - 20010615ELS USNR...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062076C070421
It was noted that he pled guilty in civilian criminal court and that, on 28 February 1996, an administrative separation board found that he had committed this offense. The applicant’s appeal was denied and, on 4 October 1997, the applicant’s LOR was officially filed in his OMPF. On the same date, the applicant also received orders discharging him from the USAR AGR Program, effective 26 July 1999.
USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00489
This can not be called a repeated offense of theft, because my civil court concluded on 970528 that it was two counts of possession and not felonious larceny as stated on my discharge paperwork. Supervised probation for 18 months.970711: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by conviction on July 2, 1997 by the State of North Carolina for two charges of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010007
He was sentenced to 4 years for violating the conditions of probation. After the 35B hearing, the applicant was sentenced to 5 years of Intensive Supervision Program. His sentence to 4 years confinement was set aside. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130010007 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130010007 10 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002037
On 31 January 1984, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct due to his civilian conviction. His senior commander subsequently recommended approval of the discharge action with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 24 February 1984, the separation authority approved his discharge for...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130001430
IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 12 April 2013 CASE NUMBER: AR20130001430 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicants length and quality of his service to...