Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709777
Original file (9709777.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
1. The applicant requests reinstatement to active duty at the rank he held at the time of his separation, back pay and allowances, and removal of all military service record entries indicating he was discharged for misconduct. He states the discharge is unjust because it was based upon unreliable evidence and all attempts to obtain a hearing or otherwise be able to defend himself were denied. He passed two urinalysis tests, on 17 November 1995 and 10 April 1996. He includes several statements, including one from his platoon leader, attesting to his good conduct, bearing and duty performance. His counsel makes no statement
2. The applicant’s military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 June 1993 for 5 years. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded MOS 95B (Military Police). He was promoted to Specialist Four, E-4 on 1 October 1995. He had no record of disciplinary problems prior to the incidents leading to his discharge. He had earned the Army Achievement Medal (1 st Oak Leaf Cluster) and also several certificates of appreciation and achievement.

3. A Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigation established probable cause and evidence to believe the applicant, along with several others, committed the offenses of wrongful possession, use and distribution of marijuana when they consumed an undetermined amount of marijuana by passing it amongst each other. The dates of the offenses were 31 March - 19 May 1996 at various locations and 19 - 20 April 1996 in Maastricht, the Netherlands. Three of the individuals provided statements to the CID which implicated the applicant.

4. On 31 July 1996, the applicant’s First Sergeant ordered him not to have any contact with the primary accuser while action was still pending in his case.

5. On or about 1 August 1996, the applicant and one other individual helped the primary accuser into the barracks after physical training. She (the accuser) and the applicant were alone for one or two minutes. Later the applicant approached the other individual and “insinuated that if anyone asks about the day in question that I should tell them I was there the whole time, that we transported (her) together.”

6. On 16 August 1996, the applicant attended a social function at a local restaurant. The accuser appeared, uninvited. One witness stated she talked to the applicant; he paid no attention; she insisted on talking; he said that was not the time or the place. Another witness stated she talked to him; he responded; then they both went into another room to discuss something. Another witness stated he overheard her say she had falsely accused the applicant but made no mention of the applicant’s response. Another witness stated she and he “began talking about some statements that her and her friend wrote against” him. He “then asked her why they were written.” Further conversation in a similar vein was overheard.

7. On 30 October 1996, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings and was mentally responsible.

8. On 1 November 1996, discharge proceedings under Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct, were initiated.

9. The applicant provided rebuttal comments. He stated that he had been offered non-judicial punishment, but he was innocent so he turned it down and demanded trial by court-martial. There was evidence in the packet indicating that false statements were made. In reference to his disobeying the order to have no contact with the accuser, he stated he was often tasked with work details which had him working with her. The only inappropriate contact was at a local restaurant. She persisted in talking to him. He realized he showed poor judgment in talking with her; however, that conduct by itself is insufficient evidence to form the basis of chapter action.

10. The applicant requested consideration of his case by a board of officers, but as he had less than 6 years active federal service and he was not being considered for a discharge under other than honorable conditions, he was not entitled to this right.

11. On 9 December 1996, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be given a general discharge.

12. On 18 December 1996, the applicant was discharged, with a general under honorable conditions discharge, in pay grade E-4, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct . He had completed 3 years, 5 months and 25 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

13. 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. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate.
14. The separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record. When a soldier has completed entry level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the soldier’s record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be inappropriate.

 CONCLUSIONS

 1. The applicant admits to disobeying an order to have no contact with his accuser while his case was pending. While some consideration is given to the fact he apparently was detailed to work with her, he gives no evidence that he told the person so detailing him that he was to have no contact with her. As to the incident at the restaurant, while it may have been inconvenient for him, he could have just walked away. The applicant was a soldier with law enforcement training and several years of law enforcement experience; he should have known that talking to his accuser could have led to a possible obstruction of justice or the perception of such. This alone was serious enough to warrant his separation for misconduct and so the narrative reason for separation was and still is appropriate.

2. However, this Board also notes that the applicant had a very good record prior to the charges that led to his discharge and apparently continued to work well during the time his case was pending disposition. It notes that the primary accuser was overheard “confessing” she had falsely accused the applicant of these charges. It also notes that while one of these charges was the wrongful use of marijuana over an extended period of time, the commander makes no mention of his ever failing a urinalysis test.

3. In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

 RECOMMENDATION :

1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing:

a. that the individual concerned was given an honorable discharge from the Army on 18 December 1996, under the provisions of Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct;

b. that the individual concerned be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 18 December 1996, denoting an honorable discharge in lieu of the general discharge now held by him; and

c. that the individual concerned be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting the aforementioned corrections.

 2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE :
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

GRANT FORMAL HEARING

 DENY APPLICATION




                                                    
                                                      CHAIRPERSON

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709777C070209

    Original file (9709777C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Approved

    Three of the individuals provided statements to the CID which implicated the applicant. It notes that the primary accuser was overheard “confessing” she had falsely accused the applicant of these charges. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing: a. that the individual concerned was given an honorable discharge from the Army on 18 December 1996, under the provisions of Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct; b. that the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071622C070402

    Original file (2002071622C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    He explained that the accuser had made the allegations after her rater (CW2) had counseled her on her conduct towards himself. On 1 December 2000, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation recommending that the applicant appear before a Show Cause Board based on his conduct as an officer and the substantiated investigation. Other witnesses refuted her version of the discussion concerning the applicant’s offer to strip down to a thong and perform lap dances for $20.00 and one...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2008-090

    Original file (2008-090.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PO F was upset and “told her about the van ride and the Peking.” PO F told her that she had been drinking and that the applicant “was touching her breasts and making threats.” PO F also talked about the “[genital] touching” but did not go into detail. Testimony of the Executive Officer (XO) in the Article 32 Investigation The XO of the cutter stated that the applicant was the unit CDAR as “designated in writ- ing by the unit instruction.” Both the applicant and another petty officer “were...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010529

    Original file (20080010529.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 August 2005, the applicant submitted a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) (TAB F) for reenlistment in the U.S. Army Reserve and continuation in the AGR program. On 15 November 2006, the separation authority directed the applicant be separated from the U.S. Army Reserve under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c with the issuance of an UOTHC discharge. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2007-076

    Original file (2007-076.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When SN P told the applicant what SN C had said, the appli- cant denied that SN C had ever complained to him about his behavior. The applicant alleged that on January 14, 2004, he was wrongfully awarded NJP for sexual harassment even though he never sexually harassed SN C. Apart from the applicant’s own claim that he never sexually harassed SN C, the only evidence in the record that somewhat supports his denial is SN P’s stated perception that SN C enjoyed some of the inappropriate 2 Arens...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010770C071029

    Original file (20070010770C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states that the evidence clearly and convincingly shows that he neither attempted to engage in sexual relations with a prostitute, nor did he violate any force protection policy by being out of uniform off Camp Butmir, nor did he compromise the safety of the Stabilization Force (SFOR) mission by allowing an unauthorized civilian to ride in a SFOR vehicle. Chaplain M___ went on to state that he then gave the young lady a ride to her home. The conclusions in the MP Report were...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076111C070215

    Original file (2002076111C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: However, the Board finds that this evidence provided by the applicant fails to clearly establish that the NJP action in question never actually took place.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002352

    Original file (20090002352.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 May 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090002352 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) submitted by the applicant shows that, on 13 September 2008, he was informed that the battalion commander was considering whether he should be punished under Article 15, UCMJ for sexual contact by kissing PFC S_________ on the lips in violation of Article 120, UCMJ and for orally communicating certain indecent...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1997 | 9404272

    Original file (9404272.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX all agreed that the applicant had an attitude problem. XXXXXXX informed the commander that he told the applicant that she had a “s--- attitude.” On 19 Jul 91, XXXXXX and the applicant asked to have a meeting with the commander. On 23 Jul 91, XXXXXXX, noted the applicant’s absence from work during the day.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006171

    Original file (20070006171.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states that he filed an Article 138 against LTC S______ on 15 February 2006 which has never been concluded. On 5 December 2005, the garrison commander appointed an IO pursuant to AR 15-6 to conduct an informal investigation into allegations of misconduct regarding the applicant; specifically, to determine whether the applicant sexually harassed and/or acted inappropriately towards female Soldiers in the 3d ACR.