Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000807C070205
Original file (20060000807C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        28 SEPTEMBER 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060000807


      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             |
|     |Ms. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda Simmons                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Paul Smith                    |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Alice Muellerweiss            |     |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 his records be corrected by restoring his
rank to Command Sergeant Major (CSM).

2.  The applicant states that he was accused of grabbing a Soldier by his
collar.  At first, he wanted a court-martial but his chain of command told
him to take the Article 15; however, about a week later they took his CSM
rank from him.  He was transferred to Fort McClellan, Alabama, and was
treated with great indifference.  He lost his need to be a Soldier, so
after 26 years of service he got out.  He realizes that this happened over
20 years ago, but had to appeal this decision because he felt he was
treated unfairly, and wants to get the rank he earned back.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his Enlisted Evaluation Reports, his
awards, and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge
from Active Duty), in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred
on 30 November 1983.  The application submitted in this case is dated
18 November 2005.

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 limitations 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 October 1957 and
remained in the military for over 26 years, retiring on 30 November 1983,
in the rank of Sergeant Major, pay grade E-9.

4.  The applicant's records indicate he served in Alaska, Korea, Vietnam,
and Panama.



5.  On 27 November 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment
under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for
assaulting a Private E-2, by shoving him into a wall.  His punishment was a
forfeiture of $250.00 per month for 2 months.

6.  On 26 November 1982, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for
his conduct on 30 October 1982, in which he was charged with disorderly
conduct and communicating a threat.  His commander directed that the letter
of reprimand be placed in the efficiency portion of his Official Military
Personnel File.

7.  On 30 November 1982, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Letter
of Reprimand, stating he had read and understood the unfavorable
information presented against him, and elected not to make a statement.

8.  The applicant received a "Relief for Cause" Noncommissioned Officer
Enlisted Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period July 1982 to December
1982. His relief for cause was based on the applicant having received an
Article 15 and a Letter of Reprimand for two separate incidents of
misconduct; one involving assault and the other involving an altercation
with a girlfriend.

9.  The applicant's NCOER notes that prior to his misconduct he had
exemplified the finest in Soldiering qualities, and was a superb trainer,
counselor, and leader.

10.  The applicant was transferred to Fort McClellan, Alabama, in January
1983.

11.  On 7 November 1983, his request for exception to policy to allow him
to submit his retirement papers prior to being on current installation 12
months was approved.

12.  On 30 November 1983, the applicant retired, under the authority of
Title 10, United States Code, Section 3914.  His DD Form 214 indicates he
retired in the rank of Sergeant Major and at the pay grade of E-9.

13.  The applicant submits copies of some of his NCOERs, awards and letters
of appreciation.  These documents attest to his high quality of service,
his no nonsense approach to Soldiering, and his ability to counsel problem
Soldiers.





DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence shows, while the applicant had achieved the rank of CSM, his
acts of misconduct resulted in his receiving an Article 15, a Letter of
Reprimand, his being relieved from his position, and the removal of his CSM
status.

2.  At the time of the applicant's retirement he was serving in the rank of
Sergeant Major, and there is no justification for restoring his rank to
CSM.

3.  The Board notes the applicant's years of service; however, his acts of
misconduct were inappropriate and do not warrant the relief requested.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, 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.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 30 November 1983; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
29 November 1986.  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

__LS  ___  ___PS __  ___AM __  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.




                                  _____ Linda Simmons_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060000807                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060928                                |
|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.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605277C070209

    Original file (9605277C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    During the investigation, two individuals told the IO that the applicant used racial slurs when speaking of the rated NCO, who was black. Based upon the 29 March 1994 SJA review of the NCOER investigation, the Commanding General (CG), 5th Army, issued the applicant a GOMOR on 15 April 1994. The allegation that the applicant used racial slurs in speaking of black soldiers was reported, but never investigated.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026346

    Original file (20100026346.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    b. paragraph 5–43 states enlisted standby advisory boards will consider records of Soldiers on whom derogatory information has been properly substantiated, which may warrant removal from a selection list. c. paragraph 5-35 states a Soldier removed from a promotion selection list and later considered exonerated will be reinstated on the promotion selection list. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: * Setting...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001030

    Original file (20120001030.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Item 4a of his DD Form 214 shows his rank as SGM. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), then in effect, stated a Soldier holding the grade title of SGM at retirement would be placed on the Retired List in the grade title of CSM if his or her records reflected honorable service as a CSM and he or she was released from the CSM Program, voluntarily or involuntarily, because of an assignment-limiting medical or physical condition, or to serve as an SGM in any duty assignment. His...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059124C070421

    Original file (2001059124C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that he be advanced to the rank and pay grade of command sergeant major/E-9 (CSM/E-9) on the Retired List. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: However, the available evidence in this case contains no indication that the applicant was ever recommended or selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-9 by a DA promotion board or that he was placed on the E-9 promotion standing list prior to his being REFRAD.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100052C070208

    Original file (2004100052C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that the Records of Proceedings under Article 15, dated December 1985 and August 1986 and, the Record of Supplementary Actions, dated August 1986, be removed from his restricted Fiche (R-Fiche), in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant received NJP, under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on 1 August 1986, while he was serving in the rank and pay grade, Private, E-2, for committing an assault upon another Soldier on 26...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012065

    Original file (20120012065.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). (2) He states "When it was time for SSG S____'s (the applicant's) annual NCOER I was told to change my ratings to reflect he was accused of sexual harassment by the command sergeant major (CSM). The available evidence shows the applicant was accused of sexual harassment.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015394

    Original file (20100015394.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 2 July 2007, and a Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER), for the period 1 June - 2 October 2007, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant was also informed that a relief for cause NCOER was to be prepared by his rating officials.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014653

    Original file (20090014653.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides a 26 March 2004 statement and summary of her actions, a 2002 duty appointment memorandum, a list of personnel, a December 2002 Noncommissioned Officers Evaluation Report (NCOER), January 2004 release from active duty orders, February 2004 mobilization orders, February 2004 deployment orders, November 2004 active duty orders, a December 2004 NCOER, a December 2004 edition of "The 3rd Word" newsletter, a 2005 DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605953C070209

    Original file (9605953C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant stated that the statement by the trainee and a witness to the first incident differed, and that he had counseled the drill sergeant. On 16 January 1996 the applicant’s first sergeant at that time stated that he was completely satisfied with the applicant’s performance, that the incident (mass punishment), taken by itself, should not have resulted in his removal from drill sergeant duties. A 20 June 1996 memorandum from the applicant’s former company commander indicates that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018360

    Original file (20110018360.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A review of the applicant's OMPF shows the change-of-rater report covering the period 1 June 2007 to 18 January 2008 is the report of record. A review of the company and battalion commander's records failed to reveal any derogatory information such as a reprimand in their OMPF's related to the contested NCOER. It is also noted that both the commander's inquiry and the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation concluded that the applicant was not properly counseled and mentored by his rating chain...