RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 13 September 2007
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070006109
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.
Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano
Director
Mr. Dean L. Turnbull
Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Mr. Thomas A. Pagant
Chairperson
Mr. Eric N. Anderson
Member
Mr. Paul M. Smith
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 reconsideration to upgrade his general discharge to an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he was treated very unfairly when he addressed his problems with his chain of command, so his only recourse was to deal with the situation himself. He states it may have been the wrong choice but at the time he felt it was the only alternative. He states he was too young and did not know how to emotionally deal with such matters in a marriage relationship.
3. The applicant provides a written statement, dated 7 April 2007.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20060007930, on 15 March 2007.
2. In the original decision the ABCMR found that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), Chapter 10, for the good of the service. The applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge. He was absent without leave numerous times and was reduced from the rank of sergeant E-5 to specialist E-4. The applicant consulted with defense counsel and voluntarily, in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. His request was approved by the general court-martial convening authority.
3. On 23 December 1971, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. The ADRB determined that the applicant merited an upgrade of his discharge from undesirable to general (under honorable conditions).
4. The applicant provided new arguments which require that his case be reconsidered by the ABCMR.
5. In the statement that the applicant provided, he said that his first sergeant was unprofessional and rude towards him when he addressed his dilemma concerning him and his wife. His first sergeant then restricted him to Post. He
states, in effect, if his first sergeant would have addressed the issues and assisted him in his dilemma as opposed to conducting himself unprofessionally, all of his issues could have been avoided. He states that he told his first sergeant, "I love my wife and want my marriage to work."
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant requests reconsideration to upgrade his general discharge to an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant was over 20 years old when he was discharged. He had been promoted to a noncommissioned officer rank (sergeant). Therefore, the applicants contention that he was too young to emotionally deal with his marital relationship is not accepted.
3. The applicant has not submitted any evidence to show that his chain of command and first sergeant were unprofessional and rude when dealing with his problems.
4. As such, he is not entitled to correction of his records to upgrade his general discharge to an honorable discharge.
5. 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 this requirement.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___tap___ ___ena__ ____pms 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20060007930, dated 15 March 2007.
________Thomas A. Pagant________
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR20070006109
SUFFIX
RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070013
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-01446 INDEX CODE 106.00 110.02 134.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general discharge [upgraded by the Discharge Review Board (DRB) from under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC)] be upgraded to honorable, all derogatory materials be deleted from her records, and she be reimbursed...
AF | DRB | CY2010 | FD-2008-00512
|2 | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 3 \LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEIL.’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAI EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER 20 May 2010 FD-2008-00512 oat PRICANT: 8 SUE AND THE BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONALY ql THB ATTACHED AIR FORCE: Tew. SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS...
He indicates that he was denied access to documents or evidence in his case. He requested, but was denied the right to cross-examine his former supervisor and his wife. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02813
At no time was he in the chain of command of the student he was convicted of having the relationship with. DPSOA states no issue of error or injustice warranting the requested relief is presented by the applicant as he held the grade of E-3 or below at the time of his discharge. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice;...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03217
He testified against his wing commander in an Inspector General (IG) investigation and believes he was reprised against when his commander demoted him for having an unprofessional relationship. The original non-judicial punishment (NJP) notification served by the wing commander violated his due process rights when he was pulled back and re-served the NJP based on information directly relating to the Commander-Directed Investigation (CDI). On 8 Oct 09, the NY TAG denied the AGR Removal for...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03453
He denies that he fraternized or engaged in an unprofessional relationship with either his spouse or the spouse of an enlisted member. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. JA has thoroughly reviewed the CDI at issue, and finds no legal deficiency to support applicant’s argument that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations against him.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00605-06
By correspondence dated 14 November 2003 (copy at Tab B), Petitioner was advised that his selection by the CY 2003 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board had been revoked for unspecified “unprofessional conduct and poor judgment” exhibiting failure to maintain the high standards expected of a Marine Corps staff noncommissioned officer.e. Enclosure (7) documents that a member of the Board’s staff contacted the HQMC Enlisted Promotion Section and was informed that had Petitioner’s selection by the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02260
The following background information was extracted from the 27 Mar 97 USAFA Military Review Committee (MRC) Action Executive Summary and related attachments: As a 4th classman, the applicant was counseled in Mar 95 about an unprofessional relationship with a female 2nd classman. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The 10th Medical Group commander (10MDG/CC), USAFA, advised he did not have the applicant’s medical record from 1997 because...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007384
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge (UOTHC) to a general discharge (GD). The applicant's separation packet is not contained in the available records; however, a duly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged with a UOTHC discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, by reason of misconduct - abuse of illegal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061058C070421
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge or that the reason for discharge be changed to "Convenience of the Government." An Army Discharge Review Boards (ADRB) Case Report, dated 19 April 1962, reveals that, on 4 October 1956, the applicant's commander recommended that a board of officers meet to determine his fitness for continued military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. The Board does not condone the...