| Mr. Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Member | |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: He makes no statement.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant’s military records show:
He had prior service in the Army National Guard. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 April 1994.
On 8 February 1996, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 - 7 February 1996.
On 6 March 1996, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.
On 8 May 1996, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally capable of understanding and participating in proceedings and psychiatrically cleared for administrative action.
On 5 June 1996, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for pattern of misconduct, citing the applicant’s two Article 15s and several counseling statements for indebtedness and lying about his mother’s illness. He recommended the applicant receive a general discharge. His intermediate commanders also recommended separation with a general discharge.
The applicant acknowledged the separation action. He requested consulting counsel. He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 11 June 1996, the applicant was confined by civil authorities for an unknown offense and released on 21 June 1996.
On an unknown date, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the applicant receive a general discharge. This approval is not on file.
On 10 July 1996, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct. He had completed a total of 2 years, 6 months and 27 days of creditable active service and had 12 days of lost time.
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.
On 27 August 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.
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. 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. Considering his numerous, though relatively minor, infractions of military discipline, the characterization of his discharge as general was and still is appropriate.
3. 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
Loren G. Harrell
Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710124C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 5 June 1996, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for pattern of misconduct, citing the applicants two Article 15s and several counseling statements for indebtedness and lying about his mothers illness. On an unknown date, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708895
On 4 August 1990 the applicant willfully destroyed government property. On 12 May 1992 the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct and commission of a serious offense. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board and was denied his upgrade request on 25 June 1998 based on a records review.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710853
On 8 January 1997, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for pattern of misconduct. On 7 February 1997, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade of E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct. In pertinent part, it states that unit commanders will take action to advance soldiers other than private E-1s on an individual basis.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710101
On 20 October 1989, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct. He requested his case be considered by a board of officers, he wanted to make a personal appearance before such a board, and wanted representation by counsel before such a board. The applicant received an Article 15 for each of the two times he tested positive for cocaine during urinalysis testing.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710101C070209
On 20 October 1989, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement. The applicant received an Article 15 for each of the two times he tested positive for cocaine during urinalysis testing.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199706838
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Accordingly on 6 July 1987 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 2 months, and 8 days of active military service. On 1 July 1988 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707956
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 applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707966
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 application without a formal hearing if it is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708416
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 applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705768
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. On 8 November 1993, the...