Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009234
Original file (20120009234.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  20 November 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120009234 


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, in effect, that his uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to a general or honorable discharge. 

2.  The applicant states that he was lied to from the start.  His recruiter promised him that he could play football and go to West Point to pursue a career in the National Football League (NFL); however, while he was in basic training he was assaulted physically and sexually by his peers.  He goes on to state that he was determined to be strong and suck it up and pretend it never happened, finish his commitment to the Army, go to West Point and then to the NFL.  He continues by stating that even after advanced individual training (AIT) the promise of going to West Point was not kept and he felt demoralized, sexually assaulted, and victimized all over again so he used the only avenue of exit available to him to get out of the Army.  

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents with his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 April 1984 for a period of 3 years and training as a combat signaler.  At the time of his enlistment he indicated that no other promises had been made to him that were not reflected on his enlistment contract. 

3.  He completed his basic training at Fort Bliss, Texas and was transferred to Fort Gordon, Georgia on 18 June 1984 to undergo his AIT.

4.  On 24 August 1984, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.

5.  The facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge are not available, but his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 19 September 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a, due to entry level status performance and conduct.  He had served 5 months and 10 days of active service and his service was uncharacterized.

6.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 of that regulation provides for the separation of personnel for unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both) while in an entry level status (less than 180 days of active service).  This policy applied to individuals who demonstrated they were not qualified for retention because they could not meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training and they lacked the aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline for military service, or they demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  Personnel separated under this provision would be separated under entry level status with their service uncharacterized.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  Unfortunately, as he acknowledged, there is no evidence in the record that the applicant was physically or sexually assaulted or that he sought assistance for any such assault.


2.  Accordingly, it appears that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate given the circumstances in the case.

3.  The applicant's contentions that he was misled to believe that he was going to attend West Point was noted but it appears to be without merit.  The evidence of record clearly documents that at the time of his enlistment no such promises were made and the applicant acknowledged in his enlistment contract that all commitments made to him were reflected on his contract.    

4.  An uncharacterized separation is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’s military service.  It merely means that the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise.  

5.  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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




      _______ _  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)                                         AR20120009234



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120009234



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014378

    Original file (20140014378.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Since then he has graduated from James Madison University (JMU) and he was commissioned through the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) in the Virginia Army National Guard (VAARNG) where he has been serving on active duty since June 2012. c. He was recruited out of high school by West Point to play football. The applicant provides: * personal letter * letters of recommendation * Assistant Secretary of the Army's decision * debt notification/documentation * DD Forms 214 (Certificate of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006593C070208

    Original file (20040006593C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that football players at West Point have until their senior year to lose their weight. The applicant responded by stating that Major L___ had initiated the separation paperwork because they had not found a weight program that would work for his situation. However, his tactical officer also stated, in his 4 May 2000 memorandum and also in his 23 May 2000 letter to the applicant's father, that while the applicant did meet the body fat standard for his age three months...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015876

    Original file (20080015876.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 4 August 1976, he requested discharge for the good of the service. Additionally, the applicant's contention that he was ordered by his first sergeant not to mention the sexual assault in his statement in support of his request for discharge was considered.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011982

    Original file (20090011982.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    During the board of officers' proceedings, the following was recorded: "After a lengthy discussion concerning whether the sworn statements should be admitted as opposed to witnesses appearing in person to testify, the board president said after he and the board members had reviewed the statements, he would make a determination. The board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged with a UOTHC discharge. The applicant states his commander asked him to accept a medical...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020254

    Original file (20100020254.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, his 1991 uncharacterized discharge be changed to honorable for the purpose of entitlement to an enlistment bonus. The applicant's contentions are not sufficiently supported by his records or his application. The available evidence shows his prior military service was uncharacterized.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011351

    Original file (20130011351.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The examining psychiatrist stated her impression was the applicant had an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. She was discharged when she told a captain she would commit suicide if she was not discharged. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was discharged on 30 November 1990 due to her inability to adapt to military service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000912

    Original file (20130000912.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides copies of his USMA separation and recoupment of education costs documents, ROTC enlistment and appointment documents, and active duty orders. The evidence of record shows: a. the applicant: * was disenrolled from the USMA in November 2008 * enrolled in ROTC a year later (i.e., November 2009) * was commissioned in the VAARNG three years later (i.e., May 2012) * was ordered to FTNGD-OS duty in October 2012 b. c. The applicant's Reserve active duty service, beginning...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000570

    Original file (20130000570.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On or about 28 January 1985, he was released from confinement and returned to his basic training unit. On 8 April 1985, his immediate commander informed him of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11 (Entry Level Status Performance and Conduct).

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021599

    Original file (20110021599.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 June 1975, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 and ordered the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. He was also between 19 and 21 years of age at the time of his misconduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00019

    Original file (ND00-00019.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My discharge was inequitable because the female midshipman involved in the incident, L_ K_, was allowed to remain at the Naval Academy without punishment, although guilty of the same UCMJ violations. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant’s offenses were very serious and overshadowed any...