APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military and medical records show:
He was born on 26 January 1964. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 19 May 1984, he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program, in pay grade E-1, for 6 years. On 31 May 1984, he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, for 3 years. His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 23 (Category IV). He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 43E1P (Parachute Rigger).
On 8 March 1985, while serving in pay grade E-2, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for absenting himself without proper authority from his appointed place of duty. His imposed punishment was 14 days extra duty and 14 days restriction. He did not appeal.
On 22 March 1985, while serving in pay grade E-2, the applicant received NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. His imposed punishment was reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $100, 14 days extra duty, and 14 days restriction. He did not appeal.
During the period 17 February 1985 through 22 March 1985, the applicant was counseled on seven occasions regarding his being absent without leave (leaving his place of duty without proper authority) on 11 February 1985, his being late for work call formation on 12 February 1995, his being absent from formation on 22 February 1985, his apathy, his being absent form formation on 27 February 1985, his personal hygiene and attitude being at a low level, his lackadaisical attitude, his failure to be present for extra training, his failure to complete the company physical training run on 11 March 1985, his being absent from
formations on 11 and 12 March 1985, his missing manifest call for airborne operation on 21 March 1985, and his deplorable behavior.
On 1 April 1985, the applicants commander advised him that he was recommending that the applicant be discharged under paragraphs 13-2a, 3, and 5 of Army Regulation 635-200 for unsatisfactory performance, and of his rights. Subsequently, after being advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to accomplish his separation for unsatisfactory performance, the applicant acknowledged that he understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a GD under honorable conditions was issued to him, and that he could make application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or this Board. He indicated that he would be submitting a statement in his own behalf; however, he did not submit a statement.
On 2 April 1985, the applicant was found physically qualified for separation under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. He was given a physical profile of 111111. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 April 1985, indicated that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings; that the applicant was mentally responsible; and that the applicant met the retention requirements of Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3.
On 3 April 1985, the applicants commander submitted a request recommending that the applicant be separated for unsatisfactory performance. He indicated that a rehabilitative transfer would be inappropriate because the applicant was resisting rehabilitative attempts and rehabilitation would not be in the best interest of the Army as it would not produce a quality soldier that was needed in todays Army. Also, he indicated that the applicants duty performance was poor. On 10 April 1985, the battalion commander approved the applicants discharge, with a GD certificate.
The applicants DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates that he was discharged on 18 April 1985, in pay grade E-1, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance, with a GD under honorable conditions. He had completed 10 months and 18 days active military service.
On 15 July 1996, the ADRB advised the applicant that, after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence, it had determined that he was properly and equitably discharged.
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.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, and 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. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he did not submit any statements.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record of military service.
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
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052439C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 20 December 1984, the applicant's commander officially notified him that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance. He had 4 days lost time due to being AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018155
On 2 April 1986, the applicant was counseled for failing to repair and missing the unit's first formation of the day at 0600 hours and for failing to report for duty after training. On 18 June 1986, the applicant was counseled by his unit commander that he was considering discharging him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14. The evidence of record shows that the applicant served successfully for a time during his service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015045
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 April 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090015045 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicants commander signed an elimination packet on the applicant for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant signed a statement indicating that he was advised he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105253C070208
On 13 March 1985, the applicant's commander recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that on 22 March 1985, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance with a GD. The applicant's discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606005C070209
On 18 January 1978, the applicants commander officially recommended that the applicant be discharged under paragraph 13-5, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature; He indicated that the applicants conduct and efficiency were unsatisfactory; that the applicant was sent to the USARB for the purpose of receiving correctional training and treatment necessary to return him to duty as a well-trained soldier with improved attitude and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080578C070215
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 9 October 1986, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct with a GD. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011150
On 1 April 1985, at Camp Casey, Korea, a board of officers convened to hear testimony and review evidence pertaining to whether the applicant should be discharged from the Army for unsatisfactory performance. There is no record the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board seeking a discharge upgrade during that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 provides that Soldiers with more than 6 years of total active and Reserve military service at the time of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008550C070205
The counselor recommended an immediate change in the applicant's attitude, that the applicant show respect to his superiors, that he perform the job he was trained to do, and perform those duties assigned to him without question. Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the requirements and procedures for the administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. As a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice to this Board expired on 10 December 1981.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056930C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 29 April 1982. Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074414C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 22 October 1982, the applicant’s commander directed that his advancement to the pay grade of E-3 be blocked because the applicant’s duty performance did not warrant advancement consideration at that time. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s...