2. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions. He states, in effect, that his discharge was unjust since it was based on actions for a 3-4 month period and not based on his 10 years of service.

3. He was born on 29 July 1957. He completed 12 years of formal education. He served in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) from 26 April 1976 through 30 September 1976 and in the Regular Army (RA) from 1 October 1976 through 4 October 1979. His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 21 (Category IV). During this period, he had 3 days time lost.

4. He served in the USAR Delayed Entry Program from 21 October 1980 through 2 February 1981. On 3 February 1981, he enlisted in the RA, in pay grade E-4, for 4 years. His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 38 (Category III). He was promoted to pay grade E-5 effective 1 May 1982. On 29 November 1984, he reenlisted in the RA for 4 years, which made his expiration of term of service as 28 November 1988. His primary military occupational specialty was 75B (Personnel Administration Specialist). He served at Fort Gordon, Georgia, Europe, and Fort Hood, Texas.

5. A Service School Academic Evaluation Report, dated 23 May 1986, indicated that the applicant attended the Primary Leadership Development Course from 25 April 1986 through 23 May 1986; that he marginally achieved course standards; and that he was a marginal graduate in that he required retraining and retesting in order to achieve a “GO” status.

6. A Military Police (MP) Report indicated that, on 28 February 1987, the applicant failed to maintain his vehicle in a single marked lane; that an odor of alcoholic beverage was emitting from his breath; that he was driving while intoxicated; that he refused to submit to a “BAC” breathalyzer test; and that he was driving without a valid driver’s license.

7. On 23 March 1987, the applicant was notified that his installation driving privileges were suspended since he had been apprehended for drunk driving on 28 February 1987. On 27 March 1987, he acknowledged receipt of the order suspending his installation driving privileges at Fort Hood.

8. A MP Report indicated that, on 7 April 1987, the applicant and his spouse were involved in a verbal altercation, which resulted in the applicant striking his spouse with an open hand on the left cheek of her face.

9. On 8 April 1987, the applicant was formally counseled on his reported relations with a subordinate soldier. He was advised that fraternization was a serious offense, and that each soldier had an individual responsibility to prevent and eliminate fraternization from the Army. The applicant indicated that hearsay was not any grounds for this type of action and something of this nature could hurt or destroy his life.

10. A MP Report indicated that, on 8 May 1987, the applicant and his spouse became involved in a verbal altercation, which led to a physical altercation resulting in the applicant striking his spouse in the mouth.

11. On 29 May 1987, the applicant was counseled on his misconduct, which included driving on post with a suspended license, two spouse abuse charges, and driving under the influence (DWI) off-post. It indicated, in effect, that, after the preliminary results of an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation was made known, it had unresolved issues; that, if the issue of driving with a suspended license was proven, further actions would be taken; that the applicant had been moved into the billets for 2 weeks which had eased tension; that the command directed marriage counseling; that a chapter 13 (sic) discharge had been initiated; and that he had to attend a mandatory drug and alcohol abuse program during the month of June due to his DWI off-post. The applicant concurred that the information accurately reflected the counseling session.

12. On 10 June 1987, the applicant received a letter of reprimand from his commander (a captain) for the probable violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He indicated that, on 8 May 1987, the applicant led him to believe that the applicant had violated the provisions of the withdrawal of his on-post driving privileges, and that, on 29 May 1987, the applicant changed his story. The applicant was formally notified that any violation of suspension of driving privileges was a violation of Article 92, UCMJ. The applicant did not submit matters in his own behalf.

13. On 10 June 1987, the applicant’s commander sent a notification of recommendation for administrative elimination under chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, to the personnel officer to conduct a preprocessing/screening of the applicant’s records. On 15 June 1987, a response was sent to the applicant’s commander by the personnel officer.

14. On 10 June 1987, the applicant’s commander recommended that the applicant be barred from reenlistment in the Army based on three MP Reports, a letter of reprimand, and the suspension of his installation driving privileges on 23 March 1987. The applicant indicated that he did not desire to submit a statement on his own behalf. On the same day, the applicant was counseled and advised that a bar to reenlistment was being placed on him.

15. On 10 June 1987, the applicant was found physically qualified for separation/retention. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 June 1987, indicated that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings.

16. On 17 June 1987, the applicant received an administrative letter of reprimand from the Commander, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood (a major general), for having committed the offense of DWI of an intoxicating liquor on 1 March (sic) 1987. He indicated that the applicant’s refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test was additional evidence that the applicant was legally drunk at the time of his arrest. The applicant elected not to make a statement.

17. On 19 June 1987, the applicant received NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for wrongful communication to his spouse a threat to injure, which was in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, and for unlawfully assaulting his spouse by striking her in the face with his hand, which was in violation of Article 128, UCMJ. His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $500 per month for 2 months and reduction to pay grade
E-4, both suspended, and 45 days extra duty. He did not appeal.

18. On 1 July 1987, his commander again recommended that the applicant be barred from reenlistment in the Army based on a NJP and the other reasons contained in his 10 June 1987 recommendation. On 1 July 1987, the battalion commander recommended that the bar to reenlistment be approved.

19. On 15 July 1987, the suspension of the punishments of reduction to pay grade E-4 and forfeiture of $500 pay per month for 2 months imposed on the applicant on 19 June 1987 was vacated. The vacation was based on the following offenses: On 13 July 1987, the applicant engaged in a breach of peace with a subordinate soldier, was disorderly, and was derelict in the performance of his duties.

20. On 21 July 1987, the applicant received NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for being disorderly on or about 13 July 1987, which was in violation of Article 134. UCMJ. His imposed punishment was reduction to pay grade E-3, 45 days extra duty, and to receive an official letter of reprimand from the battalion commander. He did not appeal.

21. On 22 July 1987, his commander again recommended that the applicant be barred from reenlistment in the Army based on the two NJPs and the other reasons previously shown. The applicant indicated that he did not desire to submit a statement on his own behalf.

22. On 24 July 1987, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intention to initiate action to separate him under chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, and of his rights. He indicated that the proposed action was based on the applicant’s DWI, spouse abuse (one unsubstantiated), and discreditable involvement with military authorities.

23. The applicant’s available enlisted evaluation reports (EER) are as follows: (The average score is shown with 125 being the maximum score achievable.) 125, 125, 124, 125, 125, 125, and 76. On the last EER, his commander stated that, during the rating period (November 1986 through July 1987), the applicant experienced several personal problems that resulted in his reduction to pay grade E-3; that the applicant was given opportunities to rehabilitate; that, in spite of his personal problems, the applicant continued to demonstrate his technical skills to develop his subordinates; that the applicant became so troubled with his personal problems that his loyalty, integrity, and
self-discipline earned him little respect from subordinates and peers; that his inability to perform under these pressures along with the absence of applying sound judgment caused him to tumble from the ranks of a noncommissioned officer (NCO); and that the applicant should not be promoted nor given responsibilities requiring little or no supervision.

24. On 5 August 1987, the acting battalion commander and the division support commander recommended that the applicant be discharged, and issued a general under honorable conditions discharge certificate.

25. On 5 August 1987, the battalion commander recommended that the applicant’s bar to reenlistment be approved. On 27 August 1987, the recommendation to bar the applicant from reenlistment was approved by the division commander.

26. On 2 September 1987, after being advised by legal counsel of the basis for his contemplated separation and its effects, the rights available to him, and the effect of a waiver of his rights, the applicant voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon his receiving a characterization of service or description of separation no less favorable than (Honorable) (Under Honorable Conditions--otherwise referred to as a “General” Discharge). He indicated that, if the separation authority refused to accept the conditional waiver of a hearing before an administrative separation board, his case would be referred to an administrative separation board. He did not submit statements in his own behalf.



27. The applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation for the applicant’s separation under chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200. He indicated that the factual reasons for the action recommended were NJPs that resulted in reduction to pay grade E-3, a DWI offense, and alleged spouse abuse which resulted in the involvement with military authorities. He indicated that the applicant should not be retained in the Army for the following reasons: His failure to respond to all efforts to help him indicate an attitude that would make him a liability to the unit or any possible future unit of assignment. His conduct was prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Army. His actions were in violation of the standards set forth in the UCMJ and he had shown that he could not abide by Army Regulations. The commander recommended that the applicant receive a general discharge.

28. On 11 September 1987, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of his commander’s proposed action to separate him under chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, and being advised of his rights. Also, he was advised that the action was based on a pattern of misconduct consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.

29. On 15 September 1987, the applicant indicated that he had received the notification of his commander’s intent to separate him for a pattern of misconduct; that he understood that a separation under paragraph 14-12b, chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 could be UOTHC; and that he still desired to have his conditional waiver accepted.

30. The applicant’s commander and the battalion commander (a lieutenant colonel) recommended that the proposed conditional waiver submitted by the applicant be approved, and that the applicant be issued a general under honorable conditions discharge certificate. The brigade commander (a colonel) recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request for a conditional waiver. He indicated that the applicant had a long pattern of offenses, both in the military and civilian community, and that the severe nature of the
offenses committed justified a discharge UOTHC. On 20 October 1987, the division commander denied the applicant’s request for a conditional waiver.

31. A MP Report indicated that, on 15 October 1987, the applicant was providing alcohol to personnel under the legal drinking age.

32. A Personnel Action, dated 28 October 1987, indicates that the applicant’s duty status changed from present for duty to confined in the hands of military authority (sic) effective 1000 hours, 21 October 1987.

33. On 9 November 1987, the applicant was notified to appear before a board of officers to determine whether he should be discharged because of misconduct before the expiration of his term of service.

34. On 16 and 17 December 1987, an administrative separation board was held. The applicant appeared with counsel. The applicant’s commander testified that an Army Regulation 15-6 was done because of rumors of the applicant’s involvement with another woman, but there was no proof of misconduct; that the applicant was command directed to “D&A (drug and alcohol)” on 29 May 1987; that the applicant told him on 8 May 1987 that he had already been scheduled for an appointment; that the applicant graduated or completed the course, but then he had another DWI; that the pattern of misconduct started in February and lasted to November; that the applicant was counseled, both in writing and orally, by him; that the applicant always appeared productive; that he didn’t have a disciplinary problem with the applicant; that he only recommended the general discharge in the first place because of his misplaced compassion; that, earlier, a general discharge may have been appropriate but not now; that some of his friends had come to tell him that the applicant was an alcoholic; that he tried to help him, but then gave up; that the bar to reenlistment, dated 22 July 1987, was the one that went through; that he initiated the chapter in June, but he held it trying to help the applicant out; that the applicant hadn’t responded to efforts to help him; that the applicant was on the border between a general and an UOTHC discharge before the last DWI; that the applicant became “OTH” material after the last DWI; and that the disorderly conduct consisted of three separate incidents when he was on restriction.

35. The battalion acting Sergeant Major testified that the applicant did outstanding work when he had day to day contact with the applicant; that, when the applicant left the Personnel and Administration Center (PAC), the level of service went down; that, even after he started getting into trouble, he continued to perform; that he wouldn’t mind having the applicant work for him; that the applicant let him down personally, but never professionally; that the applicant didn’t respond to the break he got (punishment was fairly light for the field grade NJP of 19 June 1987); that the applicant’s family had a lot to do with his situation; and that he thought that proper leadership could have helped.

36. Another soldier in the battalion (a sergeant first class) testified that he saw the applicant’s work and, to his knowledge, the applicant was very good at what he did-workwise; that he would like to have the applicant working for him; that he was surprised to hear that the battalion was last in the area that the applicant was responsible for; that the applicant’s conduct was not appropriate for a NCO, but he was under a lot of stress; that he knew that, even while the applicant was pending the actions, he never let his performance suffer; that the NCO is the leader who sets the example; and that he agreed that the applicant did not set the appropriate example.

37. Another soldier (a sergeant) testified that, when he first got there, he had some problems with his files; that the applicant helped him get everything straightened out; that the applicant worked through the PAC and division to do it; that he never saw the applicant get behind in his duties; that they worked together during the field exercises and upload; that he would like to have the applicant work with him anytime; that he thought that the applicant’s company commander was trying to get the applicant; that pressure makes people mess up and, once it started, it just got worse; and that he thought the applicant deserved another chance, in combat or in peacetime.

38. The administrative separation board found that the applicant had established a pattern of misconduct, particularly his repeated offenses of DWI which were extremely serious in nature; that the pattern had exhibited itself with offenses that were detrimental to other soldiers and civilians; that attempts to rehabilitate him had consistently failed; and that he had demonstrated by his actions and behavior that he did not possess the discipline, nor potential for future service, required of a soldier in the Army. The elimination board recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Army under chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, with an UOTHC discharge.

39. On 6 January 1988, the applicant’s bar to reenlistment was reviewed by his commander who recommended that the bar remain in effect.

40. On 8 January 1988, the applicant’s discharge for misconduct under chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, was approved by the division commander. He directed that the applicant be issued an UOTHC discharge certificate, and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.

41. On 8 January 1988, the applicant was reduced in grade of rank from private first class (PFC) (E-3) to Private (PV1) (E-1) under Army Regulation 600-200 and Army Regulation 635-200.

42. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates that he was discharged on 27 January 1988, in pay grade E-1, under chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct, with an UOTHC discharge. He had completed a total of 9 years, 11 months, and 25 days active military service and 1 year, 11 months, and 21 days prior inactive service. He received several decorations and awards to include the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal with two oak leaf clusters, and the Good Conduct Medal (3d Award).

43. On 21 August 1992, the support staff of the Board advised the applicant that he had to exhaust his administrative remedies, to include applying to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), prior to submission of an application to this Board.
44. On 22 February 1994, the support staff of the Board advised the applicant that the original application that he sent could not be processed because he had petitioned the wrong board. He again was advised to apply to the ADRB.

45. On 28 March 1994, the applicant applied to the ADRB. On 18 December 1996, the ADRB determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. He was advised that his request for a change in the character of his discharge had been denied, and that his records had been forwarded to this Board for processing.

46. Army Regulation 600-200, then in effect, provided that when the separation authority determined that a soldier was to be discharged from the service UOTHC, he or she would be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.

47. Army Regulation 635-200, at chapter 14, then in effect, established the policy and prescribed the procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense. Action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed. Also, it provided that a discharge UOTHC was normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under that chapter. However, the separation authority could direct a general discharge if such was merited by the soldier’s overall record. Upon determination that a soldier was to be separated with a discharge UOTHC, the separation authority would direct reduction to the lowest enlisted grade by the reduction authority.

48. Army Regulation 635-200, currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-7 provides, in pertinent part, that when a soldier is discharged before the expiration of his term of service for a reason for which an honorable discharge is discretionary, the following considerations apply. Where there have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be considered, as well as the seriousness of the offenses (i.e., a soldier will not necessarily be denied an honorable discharge solely by reason of a specific number of convictions by court-martial or actions under the UCMJ, Article 15). A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under
honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

CONCLUSIONS :

1. 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.

2. At the time of the applicant’s discharge, the appropriate authority also could have approved the issuance of a general discharge under honorable conditions.

3. While the Board cannot condone the applicant’s misconduct, it is reasonable to assume that many, but not all, of the applicant’s misconduct was attributable to his over-indulgence in alcohol.

4. The Board concludes that consideration should be given to the applicant’s more than 6 years of good service during his last period of active duty before his misconduct began. Also, testimony presented to the elimination board indicates that he, in effect, did his military duties, and that his commander did not have disciplinary problems with him. Further, he received exceptional EER’s except for his last EER when he was having personal problems.

5. In view of the foregoing, and notwithstanding the propriety of the discharge proceedings, the Board concludes that the applicant’s discharge UOTHC was too harsh and should be changed to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

6. Also, the Board concludes that the action to reduce the applicant from PFC to PV1 should be voided since the reduction was based on his receiving a discharge UOTHC.
7. In view of the foregoing, it would be equitable and just to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION :

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

a. by voiding the action that reduced the individual concerned from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-1 effective 8 January 1988;

b. by showing that he was discharged on 27 January 1988, in pay grade E-3, with a General Discharge Certificate; and

c. by issuing to him a General Discharge Certificate, dated 27 January 1988, in lieu of the UOTHC Discharge Certificate issued to him on that date.

BOARD VOTE :

GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

GRANT FORMAL HEARING

DENY APPLICATION




                 
                  CHAIRPERSON