APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he did not deserve a general discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Army for five years on
9 July 1991, completed training and in November 1991 was assigned to an engineer unit at Fort Lewis, Washington.
The applicant was counseled on six occasions from November 1993 to February 1994 for failing physical fitness tests, for his poor appearance, and on one occasion, for missing a formation. In one counseling session, the counselor noted that the applicant had a poor attitude and gave up easily, and that the applicant was not trying to pass the physical training test.
On 19 January 1994 the applicants commanding officer notified the applicant that he (his commanding officer) was taking administrative action to reduce the applicant to pay grade E-3 for inefficiency. In his memorandum concerning this action, that official indicated that the applicant had approached him (his commanding officer) on 17 November 1993, on the day of his physical training test, stated he was having marital problems and wanted to know if he could be barred from reenlisting so that he (the applicant) could request discharge. He told the applicant he could not do this but offered to assist him by referring him to the chaplain for counseling. Thereafter, the applicant failed miserably on this and his next physical training test. He was reduced to pay grade E-3 on 20 January 1994.
On 24 January 1994 the applicant was barred from reenlisting.
A 8 March 1994 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 1 1. In the report of medical history he furnished for the examination, the applicant stated that he was in good health.
On 28 April 1994 the applicants commanding officer initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant consulted with counsel and stated that he understood the basis of the contemplated action, its effect, and the rights available to him. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the general discharge that he might receive. He declined to make a statement in his own behalf. The applicants commanding officer then recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be separated for unsatisfactory performance, citing his overall decline in military appearance and bearing, his failure to respond to counseling, and his failure of two consecutive Army physical fitness tests.
On 2 May 1994 the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be transferred to the Army Reserve and receive a characterization of service as general. The applicant was released from active duty on 10 May 1994. He had 2 years, 10 months, and 2 days of service.
The Army Discharge Review Board, in an unanimous opinion, has denied the applicants request to upgrade his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for unsatisfactory performance. That chapter states, in part, that commanders will separate a soldier for
unsatisfactory performance, when it is clearly established that in the commanders judgment, the soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier, or the ability of the soldier to perform duties effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely. The service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military record.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:
1. The applicants administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The applicant served less than three years on a five year enlistment contract. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
2. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.
3. 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.
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 | CY2001 | 2001057948C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship debt be forgiven. On 19 June 1995, a legal officer with First ROTC Region reviewed the applicant’s disenrollment action.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 2013002004
The separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance and directed he receive an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020044
The separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance and directed he receive an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606172C070209
He again failed the physical training test. A 2 November 1993 counseling form indicates that the applicant failed the diagnostic physical training test on 11 September 1993 and six physical training tests thereafter, and that the counseling official, his company commander, was recommending that the applicant receive an entry level separation. On 2 November 1993 a counseling form completed by a medical service corps officer indicates that the applicant was referred for entry level...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005454
On 4 November 1993, the separation authority approved his discharge for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-2, and directed he receive a GD. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or general, under honorable conditions. The NJP he received, records of counseling, and three consecutive APFT failures are clear evidence that his service did not meet the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100006983
The document states that the applicant requested to take a second record APFT after failing his first on 15 October 2003. The applicant's records show that he was discharged from the military under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for failing to pass two consecutive APFTs. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that the narrative reason for his separation unsatisfactory performance, is in error or unjust.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001494
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from a general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. On 29 November 1994, his company commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance due to repeated failure of the AFPT. His records are void of evidence showing he appealed to the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709738C070209
He was reinstated to the April 1993 selection list, and would be promoted upon successful completion of ANCOC with a date of rank and effective date the date of his graduation from ANCOC. On 11 March 1997 the applicant was again conditionally promoted to Sergeant First Class, effective and with a date of rank of 1 February 1997. An official of that command stated that the applicant was promoted to Sergeant First Class effective 27 February 1997 upon successful completion of ANCOC.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010643
The applicant requests that his discharge, under honorable conditions, be upgraded to honorable. On 1 March 1994, the applicants commander recommended that he be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance, based on two APFT failures. The evidence of record clearly shows the applicant was counseled on several occasions concerning his APFT failures and overweight condition.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709738
He was reinstated to the April 1993 selection list, and would be promoted upon successful completion of ANCOC with a date of rank and effective date the date of his graduation from ANCOC. On 11 March 1997 the applicant was again conditionally promoted to Sergeant First Class, effective and with a date of rank of 1 February 1997. That official stated that the applicant could not fully document his failure to attend ANCOC, because he did not pass the physical training test; however, he gave...