Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017740C071029
Original file (20060017740C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        7 June 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060017740


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Carmen Duncan                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |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, in effect, award of the Army Good Conduct
Medal.

2.  The applicant states he was racially attacked while in the 70th U. S.
Army Field Artillery Detachment, Greece, and it was covered up by the unit.
 He deserves an Army Good Conduct Medal.

3.  The applicant provides two pages of a Department of Veterans Affairs
Rating Decision, dated 13 July 2000.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 5 April 1979.  The application submitted in this case is
dated          13 November 2006.

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 28 February 1977 for 3
years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and
was awarded military occupational specialty 05F (Radio Teletype Operator
NonMorse).

4.  On or about 31 August 1977, the applicant was assigned to the 70th U.
S. Army Field Artillery Detachment, Greece.

5.  On 20 December 1977, the applicant’s company commander recommended the
applicant be disqualified from the Personnel Reliability Program for the
following reasons:  (a) showing hostility to many members of the unit,
consisting both of verbal abuse and flagrant invitations to physical
struggle; (b) consistently displaying a pattern of abusive language to both
peers and superiors; (c) physically breaking one window and one mirror for
no apparent reason except hostility; (d) on one occasion accosting several
members of the unit to try to provoke a fight; and (e) voicing a strong
objection to being assigned to the unit and working with the members of the
unit.  The applicant was subsequently removed from the Personnel
Reliability Program.
6.  On or about 15 March 1978, the applicant was reassigned to Headquarters
and Headquarters Company, 3d Brigade, 2d Armored Division (Forward),
Germany.

7.  On 5 July 1978, the applicant was counseled in reference to a drunk and
disorderly charge by the military police.  He told his platoon leader that
he had family problems that had contributed to his state of mind at the
time that he did not care to discuss.  On 10 August 1978, he was counseled
in reference to what appeared to be an alcohol problem.  He told his
platoon leader that he was still bothered by his family problems but there
was nothing they (his unit) could help him with.

8.  On 6 September 1978, the applicant was referred to the Community Drug
and Alcohol Assistance Center (CDAAC) for counseling and rehabilitation.
After      15 days, he was placed on the active CDAAC program for episodic
excessive alcoholism.

9.  On 8 December 1978, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for two specifications of
being drunk and disorderly.

10.  On 9 January 1979, CDAAC declared the applicant to be a rehabilitative
failure.

11.  On 11 January 1979, the applicant’s commander recommended his
elimination from the service for alcohol abuse.  The commander noted, in
part, that the applicant’s character of service had been unsatisfactory.

12.  On 5 April 1979, the applicant was honorably discharged for alcohol
 abuse – rehabilitation failure under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200, chapter 9.  He had completed 2 years, 1 month, and 28 days of
creditable active service with no lost time.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides for award of the
Army Good Conduct Medal to individuals who distinguish themselves by their
conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty
enlisted service.  This period is normally 3 years.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant did not serve his complete 3-year enlistment (3 years is
the normal qualifying period for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal), and
the evidence of record shows that his conduct was not satisfactory during
his shortened enlistment either in Greece, where he contends he was a
victim of a racial attack, or while he was assigned to Germany.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant does not meet the
eligibility criteria for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.

3.   Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 5 April 1979; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 4 April 1982.  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

__cd____  __mjf___  __jcr___  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.




                                  __Carmen Duncan_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060017740                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070607                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.0056                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061640C070421

    Original file (2001061640C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 January 1978, a separation physical found the applicant to be qualified for separation. On 19 January 1978, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16, (personal abuse of alcohol or other drugs). The authority for the applicant’s separation appears to be in error.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016382

    Original file (20090016382.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general or honorable discharge. On 28 July 1981, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate be issued to him and that he be reduced to pay grade E-1. The applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 20 August 1981, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016350

    Original file (20060016350.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows that he was discharged on 14 August 1979, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the Service, under other than honorable conditions. Chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service) of this Army regulation provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for any of which includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011090C070208

    Original file (20040011090C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that after his sentence he should have been awarded a general under honorable conditions discharge. It also notes that a general discharge, when authorized, may be issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9506249C070209

    Original file (9506249C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military personnel and medical records show: He enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 July 1965, was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) of telephone switchboard operator, and served in France for 9 months and 2 days and in Vietnam for 1 year and 18 days. In August 1978 the applicant entered into the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for alcoholism. On 24 August 1983 the applicant was given a reenlistment physical...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003028

    Original file (20130003028.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) to show he was discharged for disability. On 14 February 1979, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, for alcohol/drug abuse rehabilitation failure. The available evidence shows that the applicant was administratively separated for alcohol/drug abuse rehabilitation failure.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078243C070215

    Original file (2002078243C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071854C070403

    Original file (2002071854C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: He stated that he was proud of his Vietnam service but was ashamed of the conduct which led to his court-martial and to his present situation.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709252

    Original file (9709252.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016971

    Original file (20060016971.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant requests that his under other than honorable condition discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The evidence shows the applicant was AWOL from 6-27 April 1978 and 6 July to 20 December 1978.