Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710853
Original file (9710853.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable, that he be given the rank of E-4 and reinstated in the active Army or the Reserves with back pay, if granted.
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he did not receive legal representation because it was denied. His discharge was due to threats made by a civilian female. He was harassed consistently by his immediate chain of command.

 EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant’s military records show:

He was born on 27 December 1969. He completed 12 years of formal education. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 February 1994 for 4 years. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 31R (Multichannel Transmission System Operator).

On 25 January 1995, the applicant received a second notice of a dishonored check.

On 15 May 1996, DA Form 4187 was prepared, advancing the applicant to pay grade E-4 to be effective 1 June 1996.

On 31 May 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 and for being disrespectful towards a non-commissioned officer. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2, a forfeiture of $228 pay for 1 month and 14 days extra duty and restriction.

The applicant received four counseling statements in reference to problems with his girl friend. The problems included altercations resulting in injuries to him, incarceration for domestic violence, court appearance for domestic violence/restraining order, and being restricted to post and his girl friend being barred from the battalion area because of these problems. The applicant concurred in all four of these counselings. He was also counseled for improper use of the chain of command and for not using proper sick call procedures/failure to report for physical training formation/failure to follow instructions, but he noncurred in these two counselings.

On 31 August 1996, the applicant was advanced to pay grade E-3.

On 5 November 1996, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 3 December 1996, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally responsible, mentally capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings and psychiatrically cleared for any administration action.

On 8 January 1997, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for pattern of misconduct.

The applicant acknowledged the separation action. There is no memo to show he either waived or requested consulting counsel.

On 21 January 1997, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the applicant receive a general discharge.

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. He had completed 2 years, 11 months, and 14 days of creditable active service and had no 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.

Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system. It provides for career progression and rank that is in line with potential, recognizing the best qualified soldier that will attract and retain the highest caliber soldier for a career in the Army. Additionally, it precludes promoting the soldier who is not productive or not best qualified, thus providing an equitable system for all soldiers. In pertinent part, it states that unit commanders will take action to advance soldiers other than private E-1s on an individual basis. It also states that soldiers are in a nonpromotable status when they are involved in proceedings that may result in an administrative elimination.

 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.

2. In the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. The applicant has supplied no supporting documentation to show he was denied the right to counsel.

3. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action. His acknowledgment is on the second page of the commander’s recommendation.

4. The applicant’s characterization of service is commensurate with his overall record of service, which in turn would tend to justify the commander’s right to not promote to pay grade E-4.

5. 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

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000711

    Original file (20140000711.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 March 1998, the applicant's commander notified him he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-12b for a pattern of misconduct. The commander indicated he was recommending the applicant be given a general discharge. On 4 May 1998, the separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, patterns of misconduct, and directed the issuance of a...

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00481

    Original file (FD2006-00481.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    * Reason and Authority SAFIMRBK 550 C S T E C T WESI', SUI'TE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742 ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 I (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATlONALE CASE NUMBER FD-2006-00481 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reason and authority for the discharge. The records indicated the applicant received two Article 15s and a Record of Individual Counseling for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086628C070212

    Original file (2003086628C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 8 May 1987, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct – drug abuse. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. On 9 March 1994, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00462

    Original file (BC-2003-00462.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The XXX TAW commander testified that he was not aware of any alcohol problems the applicant might have had, that the applicant had family and financial problems, and that while the applicant never told him he had an alcohol problem, it was possible he did have an alcohol problem. He testified the applicant never told him he had an alcohol problem. Diagnosis was probable alcohol abuse with a recommendation to the commander to refer the applicant again to Social Actions and, if retained, to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006559

    Original file (20120006559.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests removal of the following DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) from his official military personnel file (OMPF): * 1 January 2005 through 31 December 2005, dated 28 March 2006, hereafter referred to as the first contested OER * 1 January 2006 through 18 May 2006, dated 18 May 2006, hereafter referred to as the second contested OER 2. c. Part Va (Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater) - Evaluate the Rated Officer's Performance During the Rating Period...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014159

    Original file (20110014159.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision denying his request to upgrade his discharge to a general discharge. In a statement submitted by his mother, dated 23 August 2010, she describes the abuse she suffered from her husband (applicant's stepfather).

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005682

    Original file (20140005682.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant provides: * Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings * Health record documents * Personal/Military Data Sheet * Internet articles pertaining to PTSD, sexual violence, sexual assault, and rape * Applicant's "Suicidal" Letter * Internet DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 11 February 2003 * Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) * VA Problem List CONSIDERATION...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023619

    Original file (20110023619.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. On 6 January 1999, the applicant's company commander recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for patterns of misconduct, with a general discharge. The evidence of record...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014481

    Original file (20100014481.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    She also requests that her DD Form 214 be corrected to show her service in Iraq, Iraq Campaign Medal, the Army Commendation Medal for service in Iraq, and her in-service classes. On 28 August 2008, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct due to the use of illegal drugs. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to changing the discharge and the reentry code and showing the Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017885

    Original file (20130017885.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no record of her military contract to show she should have been on active duty when she was serving on active duty during the last year. A Corrected By Name List – Headquarters, Department of the Army, Monthly SGT/SSG Promotion Selection Name List, dated 28 June 2012, which shows her name listed as being qualified for promotion to SSG/E-6 on 1 July 2012. c. A DA Form 4856, dated 29 June 2012, which shows she received counseling for the initiation of an investigation after her chain...