APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his record be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was not given a chance to explain himself and his supervisor never stood up for him.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 6 November 1989, he enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19K (M1 Armor Crewman). On 6 January 1992, he was advanced to pay grade E-4.
On 25 January 1993, a bar to reenlistment was approved and subsequently reviewed and not removed.
On 3 March 1993, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave on 1 March 1993. His punishment was restriction and extra duty.
On 8 April 1993, he accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for the wrongful possession of a firearm while residing in a troop billet. His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-3.
The unit commander notified the applicant of his initiation of a separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, based on his patterns of misconduct (2 NJPs and formal counselling for his failure to pay child support; his failure to renew his wifes identification card; his failure to follow instructions; his failure to be at an appointed place at an appointed time; and for making a false official statement). He was advised of his rights.
On 29 April 1993, a Mental Status Evaluation cleared him for separation.
On 6 May 1993, a physical examination cleared him for separation.
On 8 June 1993, he was discharged, in pay grade E-3, with a general discharge, under the above cited regulation. His Report of Separation indicates that he had 3 years, 7 months, and 2 days of creditable service.
On 10 December 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade.
Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. A specific category was patterns of misconduct. A general discharge was normally appropriate for a member who was discharged for patterns of misconduct.
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 applicants 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 therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants 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 | CY1996 | 9608586C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, correction of his military records by showing on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that his rank was specialist four, and that his pay grade was E-4. There is no evidence in the available records that the applicant was advanced to a higher grade after his reduction to pay grade E-2 on 26 August 1993. The applicant nor counsel has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008149
The applicant was counseled again on 21 March 1994, for failure to pay his debts. He was informed that if his behavior continued, action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, would be initiated. On 20 December 1994, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and he directed that the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014385
The applicant requests that his general discharge be changed to an honorable discharge. On 13 May 1994, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, with issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. On 19 May 1994, he was discharged accordingly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008135
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The circumstances under which he was discharged merited the character of the discharge at the time. He was advised of the factual reasons for the proposed separation action and that he could be discharged with a UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018256
The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-1 on 1 March 2006, for 4 years. On 29 October 2008, the applicants company commander advised him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct, with a general discharge. On 18 December 2008, he was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011840
On 1 August 1989, consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the administrative discharge and ordered the applicant discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. His discharge was appropriate because the quality...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011323
On 22 June 1993, the applicant's company commander recommended he be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, with a general discharge, under honorable conditions. On 6 August 1993, the applicant was accordingly discharged from active duty, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct-commission of a serious offense, with a general discharge, under honorable conditions. He was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055854C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. A general discharge was normally appropriate for a member who was discharged for patterns 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 | CY1997 | 9707956C070209
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 Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707966C070209
BOARD DATE: DOCKET NUMBER: AC98-07956 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. 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...