MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 25 February 1998
DOCKET NUMBER: AC96-07539
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The following members, a quorum, were present:
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.
The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.
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: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was deployed to Egypt in support of Operation Desert Storm and to Cuba during the Haitian Refugee Crisis. He also states that he had served most his term with good conduct until receipt of a general discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 15 May 1990 for a period of 3 years as a light weapons infantryman.
In May 1991, the applicant began receiving numerous
counseling statements for failure to follow orders, disobeying a lawful order, performance counseling, failure to be at his appointed place of duty, failure to follow instructions and other similar offenses.
On 29 May 1992, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for larceny. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and 45 days restriction and extra duty.
The applicant underwent a mental evaluation on 16 November
1992 which determined that he could distinguish right from
wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to
understand and participate in administrative or judicial
proceedings.
The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 24 November
1992 for the aforementioned counseling regarding his misconduct.
On 10 December 1992, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 6 November 1992 to 9 November 1992. His punishment consisted a forfeiture of pay, and 45 days restriction and extra duty.
On 10 December 1992, the applicant was notified that action to eliminate him from the service was being initiated under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, based on acts of misconduct. He acknowledge receipt of the notification and, after consulting with counsel, he waived representation by counsel and opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for
separation on 15 December 1992 and directed that applicant
be issued a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions in the pay grade of E-1 on 5 January 1993, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct. He had served 2 years, 7 months, and 21 days of total active service and had 4 days of lost time due to AWOL.
The applicant has not applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of
his discharge. However, the actions by this Board does not preclude the applicant from applying to the ADRB at a later date.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for
the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
The applicants administrative separation was
accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
Careful consideration has been given to the applicant
contentions. However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of
record and his service was too undistinguished for further relief to be appropriate.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
JHL CMF KW DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063352C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 7 June 1995, his commander advised him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, based on his pattern of misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082471C070215
On 15 January 1992, the applicant's commander officially notified him that he was being recommended for discharge with a GD under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for a pattern of misconduct. Army policy states that a under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an HD may be granted. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002082471SUFFIXRECONDATE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074845C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. She cites the evidence presented to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to substantiate her case. On 10 November 1999 the applicant was separated with a general discharge for misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067166C070402
On 14 June 1996, his commander advised him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, based on his pattern of misconduct. On 24 June 1996, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the above-cited regulation with a general discharge under honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706507C070209
On 2 August 1988, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation. On 31 August 1988, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a general discharge under honorable conditions. The applicant was discharged on 8 September 1988, in the pay grade E-1, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs, and was given a general discharge under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706507
On 2 August 1988, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation. On 31 August 1988, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a general discharge under honorable conditions. The applicant was discharged on 8 September 1988, in the pay grade E-1, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs, and was given a general discharge under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067625C070402
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The chain of command did not accept his conditional waiver and the applicant appeared before an administrative separation board, represented by counsel, on 16 July 1992, at 0930 hours. The administrative separation board which considered the applicant’s case and recommended his discharge, was properly convened and functioned in compliance with pertinent regulations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071586C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. At the time of his enlistment he indicated that he was divorced.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003869
On 18 February 1992, the applicant submitted a statement stating that he desired to be retained on active duty and that if the chain of command determined to discharge him, he requests an honorable discharge. On 19 February 1992, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of patterns of misconduct, and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. His discharge was appropriate...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069360C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 23 March 1994, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct with a general discharge. On 30 June 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.