APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  He filed no contentions.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military and medical records show:

The applicant was born on 27 July 1968.  He completed 12 years of formal education.  On 14 June 1988, he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program, in pay grade E-1, for 8 years.  On 24 August 1988, he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, for 4 years.  His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 39 (Category III).  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B10 (Infantryman).

On 1 February 1989, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for underage drinking.  His imposed punishment was restriction for 7 days and extra duty for 7 days.  He did not appeal.

He was denied advancement to pay grade E-2 on 1 February 1989.  On 1 June 1989, he was advanced to pay grade E-2 after a promotion bar was lifted.  On 1 September 1989, he was advanced to pay grade E-3.

On 16 April 1991, the applicant received NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for unlawfully striking his spouse on the back of her head with an open hand.  His imposed punishment was reduction to pay grade E-2, a forfeiture of $422 pay per month for 2 months (suspended), and extra duty for 45 days. He did not appeal.

Memorandums for Record by the platoon leader (a second lieutenant) indicated, in effect, that the applicant had been recommended and received counseling from several different agencies since he first abused his spouse on or 


about 25 March 1991; that the applicant was referred to Family Advocacy on 3 April 1991 for spouse abuse; that Family Advocacy determined on 10 April 1991 that there was abuse and recommended Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP), marital counseling and couples group; that the applicant and his spouse attended group therapy, but treatment was not completed; that the applicant attended Track II orientation and was referred to Track II; that Family Advocacy interviewed the applicant and his spouse on 8 August 1991; that the case file was reviewed on 14 August 1991; that his spouse had reported three additional abuse incidents; that his spouse was identified as being pregnant, and that she might have an alcohol problem; that the applicant and his spouse were removed from the Couples Group Plan; that it was recommended that his spouse continue individual counseling, and that the applicant continue Track II; that the ADAPCP authorities reported on 19 August 1991 that the applicant had not taken his antabuse as prescribed; that two sergeants began giving the applicant his antabuse every morning; that his spouse missed several appointments for counseling; that it was recommended on 29 August 1991 that his spouse receive counseling from ADAPCP and additional counseling because of her suicidal thoughts; that the applicant completed Track II on 16 September 1991; that his spouse missed her ADAPCP appointment on 30 September 1991; that the applicant had visited with the chaplain three times since March 1991, and he and his spouse had visited with the chaplain twice; that the applicant did not have any financial problems; that the applicant refused at times to pay monies due; that the landlady reported that the applicant and his spouse left without paying the September and October rent; that some damage to the unit was reported by the landlady; that the applicant admitted to some damage, but not all of it; that it was determined that the applicant was responsible for all bills presented by the landlady; that the applicant sent his spouse home to Georgia and refused to pay rent and some damages; that the applicant claimed that he did not have a lease but in fact it was with his spouse; that the applicant did not know when his spouse moved from the apartment since 

he was separated from her, and he lived in the barracks; that the separation was not legal and they were back together; that his spouse was in Georgia awaiting his discharge; that it was recommended that the landlady take the applicant to small claims court; that he did not recommend financial planning since the applicant had the money, but he simply refused to pay; that the applicant was ordered to pay basic allowance for quarters to his spouse during the time of his separation from her; that the applicant was arrested by the Honolulu Police Department on or about 1 August 1991 for spouse abuse; that later in August he was arraigned for trial on 20 November 1991; that the court sentenced the applicant on 20 November 1991 to attend a civilian anger control program and attend 24 meetings; that the applicant was scheduled to attend anger control at Schofield Barracks on 7 January 1992; that Family Advocacy stated that the Army program might not be able to replace the civilian anger control class; that Family Advocacy checked and informed the first sergeant that the applicant had to attend the court appointed civilian anger control classes; and that, if the applicant was chaptered, he could try to get his lawyer to transfer him to a program in Georgia.

During the period from January 1989 through October 1991, the applicant was counseled on numerous occasions regarding a variety of issues.  These issues included, in effect, that his conduct was below standards; that he had some problems that were not in keeping with the Army standards; that his weapons were far below standards; that his job performance was below standards; that there were complaints about his mouthing off when he was told to do something; that his attitude during physical training contributed to insubordination; that he lacked motivation and had a bad attitude; that he did “cat calling” in the formation run; that he had an assault charge; that he failed to follow instructions; that he was disrespectful to noncommissioned officers; that he had expressed no desire to train or the need of him being in the “AT” section; that he was late for formation; that he needed to develop self-motivation; that 

his uniforms were starting to get faded; that he was being  barred from reenlistment; that he had missed an appointment with the ADAPCP; and that his performance was unsatisfactory.

On 18 October 1991, the applicant was found physically qualified for separation.  A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 28 October 1991, indicated that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings; that he was mentally responsible; and that he met the retention requirements of Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3.

On 8 November 1991, the applicant’s commander advised the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him for his patterns of misconduct under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and of his rights.

After being advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to accomplish his separation and his rights, the applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf.  He stated, in effect, that he hadn’t been the best soldier; that he didn’t feel that he had been the worst either; that he had some problems; that he had a hard time getting through them; that he had gotten them behind him; that he was trying to do his job and finish his time in the Army; that, when he was getting back on track, they were going to chapter him; that he had only 8 months left; that he would like to finish his tour of duty; and that, if it was decided to go ahead with his chapter, he would like a chapter that would allow him to use his “GI” Bill.  He acknowledged that he understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him.

Subsequently, the applicant’s commander submitted a request to separate the applicant under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 12b.  He indicated that the applicant 


had committed a pattern of misconduct; that the applicant’s conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline; and that he recommended that the applicant’s service be characterized as general under honorable conditions.

A statement, dated 23 December 1991, by the platoon sergeant indicated, in effect, that the applicant owed monies to his landlady in the amount of $1,425.94; that the applicant was given 3 weeks by a commissioned officer to come up with any reason why they were not just debts; that the applicant failed to produce any statement on the matter; that the applicant was given a direct order from the company commander that he would pay all monies due the landlady; and that the applicant had been given 2 months to pay off the debt.

On 30 December 1991, the battalion commander recommended approval of the applicant’s discharge, and that his service be characterized as general under honorable conditions.

On 8 January 1992, the brigade commander approved the applicant’s discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 12b, with his service characterized as general under honorable conditions.

On 17 January 1992, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-2, under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b (misconduct-pattern of misconduct), with a general discharge under honorable conditions.  He had completed 3 years, 4 months, and 24 days active military service.  He received the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, and the Sharpshooter Qualification Badges (M16 Rifle and Hand Grenade).

On 25 July 1995, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.  It determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.



Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating personnel for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or the soldier is not amenable to rehabilitation.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.

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:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement

2.  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.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director