BOARD DATE: 20 March 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110018188
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 to upgrade his discharge to general.
2. The applicant states he has new evidence and new arguments that were not considered by the Board.
* Before being assigned to Germany he passed the E-5 promotion board; but there were no E-5 positions in his new unit so he remained an E-4
* If he had been promoted to E-5 as promised he may not have experienced the pressure and stress that led to his being absent without leave (AWOL)
* Lies of other Soldiers resulted in the suspended nonjudicial punishment (NJP) being vacated. He would never have alcohol in the field
* His unit had the highest AWOL, article 15, and court-martial rate, and many of the Soldiers were abused by their superiors
* He disagrees with the original record of proceedings (ROP) stating "his discharge reflects his overall record of service". He performed the best he could under arduous conditions
* He suffered prejudice and discrimination and his request should not be denied
* He will not be eligible for veterans benefits without an upgrade of the discharge
* After serving over 5 years he should have received a general or honorable discharge
3. The applicant did not provide any supporting documentation.
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 AR20100008916, dated 12 August 2010.
2. The applicant submitted new arguments that require reconsideration.
3. The applicant's records show he served in the Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Alabama Army National Guard prior to enlisting the Regular Army on 29 December 1983. He held military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Food Service Specialist), and was promoted to specialist four/E-4. He served in Germany from 23 July 1985 to 2 October 1986. He was awarded the Army Service Ribbon and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.
4. The punishment for a February 1986, NJP under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully using marijuana was suspended. On 20 June 1986, the suspended punishment was vacated for having alcoholic beverages in the field.
5. On 27 June 1986, the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL). He ultimately returned to military control on 18 August 1986.
6. On 19 August 1986, court-martial charges were preferred against him for the above period of AWOL. The applicant requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations).
7. On 3 October 1986, he received an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. He had completed 2 years, 10 months, and 16 days of creditable active service and had 52 days of lost time.
8. On 25 February 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded based upon his new arguments as been noted. However, he has not provided any new documentation or convincing argument to substantiate any of his allegations.
2. There is no evidence of record showing:
a. He passed the E-5 promotion board and there were no E-5 positions in his new unit in Germany.
b. The lies of other Soldiers resulted in the suspended NJP punishment being vacated.
c. His unit had the highest AWOL, article 15, and court-martial rate, or that many of the Soldiers were abused by their superiors.
3. The following arguments were taken into consideration and are considered insufficient to grant his request:
a. His disagreement with the original ROP stating "his discharge reflects his overall record of service" and that he performed the best he could under arduous conditions.
b. He suffered prejudice and discrimination.
c. After serving over 5 years he should have been granted a general or honorable discharge. Based on his record of misconduct, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. This misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to an honorable or a general discharge.
4. The ABCMR does not upgrade discharges based solely on the passage of time nor does it correct records solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for benefits from another agency. The granting of veteran's benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR and any questions regarding eligibility for health care and other benefits should be addressed to the VA.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.
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 AR20100008916, dated 12 August 2010.
__________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) AR20110005373
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110018188
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008916
On 19 August 1986, court-martial charges were preferred against him for the above period of AWOL. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood by requesting a discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of a court-martial with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003715C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant’s allegations of discrimination and racism have been noted; however, they are not supported by any evidence submitted by the applicant or the evidence of record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04100272C070208
Although the self-authored statement, submitted with the applicant’s current application to the Board was included with his original request to have his discharge reviewed by the Army Discharge Review Board, his argument that he was immature, has now matured, and that his recruiter lied to him, are new arguments not previously addressed by this Board. He stated that his brother (the applicant) was assigned to Germany after training and that they “missed [him] considerably….” He states that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003246
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 October 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130003246 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The examining psychiatrist diagnosed him with a passive aggressive personality and psychiatrically cleared him for any administrative action deemed necessary by his command. It appears his commander gave him ample opportunity to correct his behavior as it was only after he received seven Article 15s and a court-martial conviction before the commander initiated separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050014597C070206
On 1 July 1974, he was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-4, for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. He was transferred to Germany on 9 September 1982, reenlisted on 15 August 1984 for a period of 6 years and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 November 1984. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008454
On 20 March 1986, the U.S. Army Court of Military Review (USACMR) considered the applicant's appeal, found that the findings and sentence were correct in law and fact, and affirmed the findings and sentence. On 10 November 1986, he was discharged from the Army with a BCD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 3, as a result of court-martial. Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice), paragraph 3-10,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022047
The applicant states he is presenting new evidence and argument that was not previously considered by the Board. The original ROP: a. contains a standardized paragraph explaining the basic statute of limitations requirement as it applies to filing applications to this Board; b. shows a substantive review of his case was conducted despite the 3-year statute of limitations; c. provided several short paragraphs informing the Board of the essential elements of the case and explaining the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027392
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The previous ROP failed to discuss the applicant's request to appear before the Board. The applicant requested a personal appearance before the Board; however, there is sufficient evidence in the available record to fully consider this case, a formal hearing is not warranted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018381
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. d. Part Va (Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater) - Evaluate the Rated Officer's Performance During the Rating Period and His/Her Potential for Promotion), the rater placed an "X" in the "Other," block and entered the following comments: While [Applicant's] duty performance was satisfactory during the rated period, his off-duty conduct was unbecoming of an officer and of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces. His...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010203
d. The applicant further states that he has problems in life now because of alcohol, which is a drug. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The applicant contends that all of the evidence he presented in his original request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to honorable was not given proper consideration by the Board.