Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004520C070205
Original file (20060004520C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        17 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060004520


      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. Edmund P. Mercanti            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Peter B. Fisher               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Rowland C. Heflin             |     |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 23 January 2003 transfer from a United
States Army Reserve (USAR) unit to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement)
due to his moving beyond commuting distance be revoked.

2.  In a second application, he states that his “Early release, placement
in the IRR, loss of military benefits, suspension of security clearance,
loss of position/job, denial of all favorable personnel actions to include
promotion, pay, leave privileges, loss of ½ months pay for 1 month,
training and points” was an error or injustice.

3.  The applicant states that commuting distance was never a problem for
him.  He was always present for duty.  In regards to his second
application, he states his request should be approved because “Lack of
jurisdiction.  Isolated incident.  Harsh punishment.  Previous 29+ yrs of
outstanding voluntary service and commitment to the US Military.  Irregular
Military Jurisprudence in the administration of the UCMJ.”

4.  The applicant provides excerpts from his military records; a post-trial
submission made by the applicant’s trial defense counsel (with attachments)
which contends, amongst other things, that the applicant had a “momentary
lapse of judgment when he visited the club and did not immediately dispose
of marijuana when it was handed to him”; and a statement made by the
applicant.

5.  In the statement submitted by the applicant, he charges that he was
discriminated against because of his race and color.  He explains that he
was accepted for an assignment to a USAR unit with the understanding that
he would attend drills for 5 to 10 or more consecutive days instead of
drill weekends because of his home of record.  He later accepted a tour of
active duty with his USAR unit, but when he reported for duty he was told
“we don’t want you here because you are a liar.”  The applicant lists
several members of his unit who resided beyond commuting distance who were
not transferred out of the unit.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military records show that, while assigned to a USAR
unit as an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA), on 17 December 1990 he
was discharged under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) for
misconduct, abuse of illegal drugs.

2.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on
20 September 1991.  The ADRB upgraded his discharge UOTHC to an honorable
discharge.

3.  On 28 May 1997, the ABCMR voided the applicant’s 17 December 1990
discharge, granted him 50 retirement points a year from the date of his
discharge, reinstated his rank, authorized him to execute an antedated
reenlistment, directed he be considered for promotion by any promotion
board which would have considered him if he had not been discharged, and
prohibited new separation action being taken based on his positive
urinalysis.

4.  Based on the ABCMR’s directive, the applicant executed an antedated
reenlistment into the USAR Control Group (IMA) dated 5 December 1992.

5.  The applicant was assigned to a USAR unit on 22 May 2000.

6.  On 3 October 2000, the applicant immediately reenlisted in the USAR
Control Group (IMA).

7.  On 31 October 2001, the applicant was transferred between units.

8.  On 6 December 2001, orders were issued ordering the applicant to 179
days of active duty with a reporting date of 6 January 2002.

9.  On 8 April 2002, the applicant was transferred between units.

10.  On 3 May 2002, orders were issued amending the applicant’s 179 day
active duty orders to read 269 days of active duty.

11.  On 15 October 2002, the applicant was honorably released from active
duty and transferred to the USAR Control Group (IMA).

12.  On 28 October 2002, the applicant was assigned to a USAR unit.

13.  On 15 February 2003, orders were issued transferring the applicant to
the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) effective 23 January 2003 by reason
of his being beyond reasonable commuting distance (change of residence).

14.  The applicant was then reassigned from the USAR Control Group
(Reinforcement) to Forces Command on 26 March 2003, then to the 599th
Transportation Company, then to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 7th
Army on 14 July 2003.
15.  The applicant’s records do not contain his Record of Trial.

16.  Army Regulation 135-91 provides for the involuntary transfer of USAR
unit members when they move beyond reasonable commuting distance from their
USAR unit.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s records confirm that he was transferred from his USAR
unit to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) effective 23 January 2003 by
reason of his being beyond reasonable commuting distance (change of
residence).

2.  While the applicant has claimed that his command had agreed to allow
him to drill on 5 to 10 or more consecutive days because of his home of
record (distance from his home to his unit), there is no record of any such
agreement in his records.

3.  However, the applicant’s statement shows that he could not perform
regularly scheduled drills with his unit because of the distance between
his home and his unit.  Therefore, without evidence to the contrary, it
must be presumed that the applicant was properly transferred from his USAR
unit to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) due to his being beyond
reasonable commuting distance.

4.  The applicant has not submitted any documentation to show that his
transfer to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) was racially motivated.

5.  As for the second application, without the Record of Trial and allied
documents, there is insufficient evidence in which to consider this portion
of his request.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___pbf___  ___rch__  ____jtm__  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.





                                  _________John T. Meixell_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004520                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061017                                |
|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.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090554C070212

    Original file (2003090554C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was discharged in 1995 with 16 years of qualifying service. He stated that he had completed over 18 years of service in the Army Reserve. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 12 December 1995, the date of his discharge; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 11 December 1998.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017764

    Original file (20090017764.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, only the following was included with his application: * 25 January 2003 enlistment contract * 4 statements associated with his chain of command supporting a request to amend his reassignment orders to permit no break in TPU assignments * Statement from the 98th Training Division Command Career Counselor * Orders transferring him to the USAR Control Group effective 30 April 2007 * Orders transferring him from the USAR Control Group with a TPU effective 1 May 2007 CONSIDERATION OF...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005634

    Original file (20130005634.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Evidence of record shows that prior to his deployment to Iraq he relocated to New York. The applicant has not provided evidence that shows he requested transfer to the IRR due to his relocation to Georgia. There is no evidence of error in his record of unexcused absences.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004644C070208

    Original file (20040004644C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received a call from his unit and was told the Command decided to reduce him to the rank of Sergeant First Class (SFC), E-7 and send him to the Inactive Ready Reserve. Section IV (Promotion to SFC, MSG, and Sergeant Major) of Army Regulation 140-158, paragraph 3-28c states that all Soldiers assigned to a TPU who reside within a reasonable distance of a current or projected position vacancy will be considered by the promotion selection board. The applicant had been promoted to MSG to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02412

    Original file (BC-2010-02412.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    MRM states that after a review of the available evidence, they note the applicant’s orders were changed by the orders clerk from “will not commute” to “will commute” to allow the applicant to continue on orders until a per diem waiver could be approved. It appears the applicant’s unit erroneously prepared and amended orders before obtaining the required per diem waiver. ____________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008772

    Original file (20080008772.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 135-155 also states, in pertinent part, that an active duty officer, who is selected for promotion but removed from the ADL and placed in an active Reserve status prior to promotion, is not eligible for that promotion and that officer will be placed on the RASL and considered for promotion by a Reserve promotion board. With respect to the applicant's consideration for promotion to LTC by a Special Selection Board, there is no evidence in the applicant’s records and the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02991

    Original file (BC-2003-02991.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Letter from HQ AFMC to applicant notifying her of two reassignment opportunities and her eligibility for RTAP. Letter from HQ AFMC to applicant notifying her of ARPC’s denial of her RTAP eligibility. DPP states the position offered her from ARPC was located in Denver, CO but that the Program Manager at DFAS-CO agreed to allow her to perform her IDT’s at the DFAS-San Antonio office thereby providing the same commuting distance she endured when assigned to Kelly AFB, TX.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02407

    Original file (BC-2010-02407.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits B and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PS recommends denial of his request for a retroactive 180-day per diem waiver for the period 29 April 2010 to 31 May 2010. MRM states that after a review of the available evidence, they note the applicant’s orders were...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077227C070215

    Original file (2002077227C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That she be authorized an antedated reenlistment. In that response, the unit retention NCO stated that the applicant was transferred out of her unit while she was within her 90-day window to reenlist.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016026C070206

    Original file (20050016026C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant's military service records contain a copy of AHRC Form 249-2 (Chronological Statement of Retirement Points), dated 9 June 2005, which shows, in pertinent part, that the applicant had completed 17 qualifying years, at the time the form was produced. Paragraph 2-8 defines qualifying service and states, in pertinent part, that a Reserve Component Soldier must earn a minimum of 50 retirement points each retirement year to have that year credited as qualifying service. The...