2. The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be upgraded and that item 29 on his DD Form 214 be corrected (erroneous dates of time lost 940302-940331).
3. He was born on 29 October 1973. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 1 August 1991, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. His Armed Forces Qualifications Test score was 50 (Category III). He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63G10 (Fuel and Electrical Systems Repairer). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.
4. On 28 January 1994, while assigned to a unit at Fort Hood, Texas, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for two occasions of disobeying a lawful order and for dereliction in the performance of his duties. His imposed punishment was 14 days extra duty.
5. On 2 March 1994, the applicants record indicated that he called his unit informing his supervisor that he was lost in Austin, Texas. However, his record indicates that he returned to duty the same day at 1325 hours. There is no other evidence in his record which indicates that he was reported for being AWOL.
6. On 2 April 1994, the applicant accepted an NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to repair. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-3, a forfeiture of $102 pay, 14 days restriction and extra duty.
7. On 18 April 1994, the applicant was barred from reenlistment. The decision was based on the applicants unsatisfactory duty performance, misconduct and actions which indicate that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.
8. During a 12 month period, the applicant was counseled on ten different occasions for eleven occasions of failure to repair and for failure to pay his debts.
9. On 28 June 1994, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The commanders recommendation was based on the applicants misconduct and action which indicated that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service. The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him, he waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.
10. On 19 July 1994, a mental status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation. There was no evidence of psychosis or neurosis or other disorders qualifying him for disposition through medical channels. He was considered mentally competent to participate in board proceedings.
11. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a general discharge. On
8 August 1994, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-3 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. He had completed 2 years, 11 months and 9 days of creditable active service.
12. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.
13. On 30 January 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge.
14. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service, in a telephonic comment to the Board, advised that it had verified from the master military pay files that the applicants pay record shows no lost time.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. There is no evidence in the applicant Official Military Personnel Record nor in the master military pay files which indicates that he went AWOL during his military career. Therefore, item 12c (net active service this period) and item 29 (dates of time lost during this period) on his DD Form 214 is incorrect.
4. While there does not appear to be any basis for upgrading the applicants discharge, there are equitable reasons for deleting the dates of time lost.
5. In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicants record as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by issuing a DD Form 215 (Corrections to the DD Form 214), Certificate of Release or Discharge by showing that the individual concerned had completed 3 years and 8 days of net active service, item 12c on his DD Form 214; and by deleting the date of time lost item 29 from his DD Form 214.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003358
The applicant requests, in effect, that his Certificate of Release Or Discharge From Active Duty (DD Form 214) entry in Item 12C (Net Active Service This Period) be deleted (001-11-17) and add (02-09-09) and Item 29 (Dates of Time Lost During This Period) be deleted (20060724-20070408 and 20070412-20070522 be corrected to show lost time (20070510-20070513). The DD Form 214, he was issued contains an entry in Item 12c (Net Service This Period) contains the entry "0001 11 17," which indicates...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018382
The applicant requests, in effect, deletion of the dates of lost time from Item 29 (Dates Of Time Lost During This Period) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release for Discharge from Active Duty). The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-1 on 28 August 1989. The applicant was honorably released from active duty, in pay grade E-3, on 1 November 1996, under the provisions of Chapter 4, Army Regulation 635-200 at the completion of required active...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511651C070209
On 7 September 1994, the commander notified the applicant that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. On 4 October 1994, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020684
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 26 June 1995, the applicant's commander recommended his separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct. There is no indication 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 | CY2011 | 20110000398
He provides: * his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Army) * his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) * his Honorable Discharge Certificate * a memorandum from the U.S. Department of Justice * a character reference letter CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. There is no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510309C070209
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the separation authority, separation code, reentry eligibility (RE) code, and narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed. On 30 April 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070001C070402
The applicant’s military records show that on 17 May 1978, he entered the Regular Army for 3 years and that he continuously served on active duty for 3 years and 2 days, until being honorably separated for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 18 May 1981. On 2 January 1985, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge for a pattern of misconduct and the commission of a serious offense under the provisions of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060012039
Current ENL Service: 3 Yrs, 8 Mos, 6 Days The net active service this period on the applicant's DD Form 214, item 12c is incorrect, the applicant has a period of AWOL, and civil confinement, that is not shown on the DD Form 214, item 29, time lost. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicants military records, and the issue he submitted, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicants characterization of service be upgraded to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003606C070205
The applicant’s military service records contain a DD Form 214, with an effective date of 26 March 2004. However, the Army preserves a record (even after time is made up) to explain which service between date of entry on active duty (Block 12a) and separation date (Block 12b) is creditable service. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to correction of his discharge document to show that the date he entered active duty this period was 24 February 2000 and that he completed 3 years net...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016704
The company commander also stated he was recommending the applicant receive an honorable discharge and that the least favorable characterization of service he may receive is other than honorable. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Therefore, as a matter of justice, the applicants military service records should be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged effective...