IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 22 July 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080006435
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to a general discharge under honorable conditions. He also requests a copy of the records used by the Board to make the previous decision in his case.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he was not aware of the15-year statute of limitations for requesting an upgrade of his discharge. He argues that he had personally requested hospitalization and received treatment for alcoholism; however, upon his release from the hospital he was put right back into the old drinking environment which resulted in his unfortunate circumstances that led to his discharge. All of his commanding officers knew he had a drinking problem but did nothing to help him. He further argues that most times when he was considered to be absent without leave, he was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people, but was within his unit. He also states that his counsel led him to believe that he had a small fraction of hope that he would receive a general discharge which encouraged him to request the administrative discharge.
3. The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his application.
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 AR20070012800, on 5 February 2008.
2. The applicant offers new argument, stating simply that he did not know about the statute of limitations; that his commanders knew of his drinking problem but did nothing to help him; that his counsel led him to believe that he had a chance to receive a general discharge which encouraged him to request the administrative discharge; and that most of the time he was considered AWOL, he was really in another part of the unit.
3. The applicant provided his service personnel records in support of the original application. Review of the previous consideration indicates that all evidence used in making that determination came from the applicant's available service personnel/medical records.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants new argument is not supported by any documented evidence and does not sufficiently mitigate his repeated acts of indiscipline during his military service.
2. The applicant submitted his service personnel records with his initial request. However, if he now needs copies of his records, he may request them from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), 9700 Page Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri 63132-5100 by submitting a Standard Form 180 (Request Pertaining to Military Records), which can be obtained online at http://archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel. If his medical records are not available from NPRC, they may have been sent to he Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which would necessitate that he request a copy from the VA.
3. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
____x___ ___x____ ___x____ 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 AR20070012800, dated 5 February 2008.
__________x_____________
CHAIRPERSON
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20070016793
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080006435
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013771
The applicant states, in effect, that in the Record of Proceedings, dated 28 August 2007, Consideration of Evidence, page 3, paragraph 11, it stated that the "applicant's service medical records were not available for the Board's review." However, there was no clear indication that the injuries were incurred as a result of hostile action; d. The applicant's medical records were not available for the Board's review. Based on the facts presented, and after a review of the original Record of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013514
c. If the report of a special selection board convened under this section, as approved by the President, recommends for promotion to the next higher grade an officer not currently eligible for promotion or a former officer whose name was referred to it for consideration, the Secretary concerned may act under section 1552 of this title to correct the military record of the officer or former officer to correct an error or remove an injustice resulting from not being selected for promotion by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011234C070208
The applicant’s cadet records are not available to the Board. Gears failed to complete the period of active duty specified in his Agreement with the Navy. Had the applicant maintained the Army's weight standard, it could be argued he would have passed the 2-mile run event.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011863
He further contends that he had a current physical examination at the time of his promotion to major, but that the information had not been provided to the previous Board for consideration. Paragraph 1d, in the CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE for the previous proceedings, states that the applicant was considered and selected for promotion to major, and that this action was approved on 19 June 2002. Paragraph 1f, in the CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE for the previous proceedings, states that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005313
The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for correction of his military records to upgrade his discharge to honorable. The Board determined that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to show that his discharge was in error or unjust. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00114
ND04-00114 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031022. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I knew someone who worked there and for this reason he hated me and told me “we don’t want your kind in this Navy.”
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000831
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant provides copies of: * His DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 27 February 2012 * A DA Form 2823 from Private First Class (PFC)/E-3 J----- J. T-----, dated 27 February 2012 * A DA Form 2823 from Private (PV2)/E-2 B------ D. L--, dated 2 May 2012 and 7 June 2012 * A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 30 July 2012 * A DA Form 5111 (Summary Court-Martial Rights Notification/Waiver Statement), dated 14 August 2012 * A DD Form...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2008-090
PO F was upset and “told her about the van ride and the Peking.” PO F told her that she had been drinking and that the applicant “was touching her breasts and making threats.” PO F also talked about the “[genital] touching” but did not go into detail. Testimony of the Executive Officer (XO) in the Article 32 Investigation The XO of the cutter stated that the applicant was the unit CDAR as “designated in writ- ing by the unit instruction.” Both the applicant and another petty officer “were...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02419
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a brief from counsel, copies of a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 8 May 07, with rebuttal; Letter of Admonishment (LOA), dated 11 Sep 07, with attachments; Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 5 Dec 07 and 31 May 08, with rebuttals; the Notification of Demotion, dated 9 Jun 09; appeal of the demotion action sent to the AFRC Commander (AFRC/CC); demotion action, dated 6 Jan 10, acknowledged on 18 May 10; award certificates; Enlisted Performance...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018405
Also incorporated herein are the military records which were summarized in the original consideration of his request to upgrade his discharge by the ABCMR in Docket Number AC93-11075, on 26 April 1995, wherein the Board carefully considered the applicant's entire service record as well as the evidence he submitted. With regard to his new issues, the Board determined that the applicant's records should be corrected to show his overseas service in Germany, but not to change the reason for his...