IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 March 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110019700 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 a reconsideration of his request for an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states the Justice Department advised him to resubmit his application based on current laws and reiterates that: * his discharge is unjust due to extreme prejudice and entrapment * rumors were passed around the facility concerning his sexuality to ward off any witnesses who would testify on his behalf * during his proceedings his defense lawyer discovered false evidence was presented * his lawyer asked him if he wanted her to bring these allegations forward in his case but he did not want such things brought out * because of his mental state, he went along with his lawyer's recommendation to accept his discharge * he was devastated by the separation processing and did not realize he could request reassignment * if he had known that such tactics were being implemented he would have addressed them * after his discharge he sought help and the Department of Veterans Affairs informed him of the various programs available to assist him in rebuilding and transitioning back into society 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence. 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 AR20100017352 on 4 January 2011. 2. The applicant's request for reconsideration based on advice received from the Department of Justice constitutes new argument. 3. With the exception of the applicant's request for reconsideration based on current laws on the advice of the Justice Department, his statements are verbatim of his prior application. 4. The applicant served on active duty from 20 January 1981 through 5 April 1995. He was promoted to sergeant first class on 1 July 1991. 5. On 27 October 1994, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for signing a false official document (two specifications), making a false official statement, wrongfully obtaining telephone services, and larceny. 6. On 3 January 1995, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (commission of a serious offense). 7. On 16 February 1995, a board of officers found the applicant had committed misconduct (commission of a serious offense) and recommended his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 8. On 24 March 1995, the separation authority approved the findings and directed the applicant's discharge with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 5 April 1995 accordingly. 9. The applicant has provided no evidence or documentation that the Department of Justice reviewed his case or recommended his submission of a request for reconsideration of his application by the ABCMR. 10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. Chapter 14 sets forth the policy and procedures for separating members for misconduct, including for the commission of a serious offense. The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, the separation authority could direct a general discharge if such were merited by the member's overall record. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because it was unjust due to extreme prejudice and entrapment. With the exception of the applicant's claim that he was advised by the Justice Department to submit a request for reconsideration based on current laws, the applicant has not provided any additional evidence or argument that was not previously considered by the ABCMR. 2. He has provided no evidence to support his contention that anyone at the Department of Justice reviewed his case or recommended his submission of a request for reconsideration of the 4 January 2011 ABCMR decision. 3. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to warrant a reevaluation and reversal of the prior ABCMR decision. 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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20100017352 on 4 January 2011. ____________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) AR20110019700 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110019700 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1