Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711026
Original file (9711026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was only 18 at the time and didn’t understand the effects the general discharge would have on his future until recently. He tried to get out on a hardship discharge but was told it was impossible. His commander told him the only way for him to get out was to get two minor Article 15s and then he could be chaptered out. He was also told he would get an honorable discharge.

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

He was born on 12 June 1970. He completed 12 years of formal education. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 August 1988 for 4 years. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 95B (Military Policeman).

On 30 May 1989, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 19 June 1989, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and for breaking restriction.

On 19 June 1989, the applicant received a local bar to reenlistment. The bar cited the above mentioned Article 15s and several counseling statements.

On 1 August 1989, the commander initiated separation action on the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct - patterns of misconduct.

On 3 August 1989, the applicant acknowledged notification of the action and was advised by counsel. He submitted no statements in his own behalf.

On 9 August 1989, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant receive a general discharge.

On 25 August 1989, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, with a general discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14. He had completed 1 year and 25 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.

On 3 November 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade.

 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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. He has submitted no evidence to show his commander misled him into misconduct. He has submitted no evidence that he attempted to request a hardship discharge or compassionate reassignment and was unjustly turned down. The applicant’s period of service was not sufficiently meritorious to merit an honorable discharge.

3. Therefore, 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 | CY2012 | 20120007142

    Original file (20120007142.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his time in service to show he completed 2 years of net active service and/or an upgrade of his general discharge. On 20 January 1989, the applicant's company commander notified the applicant that action was being initiated to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations–Enlisted Separation), paragraph 14-12b for pattern of misconduct with a general discharge. There is no evidence he...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020629

    Original file (20130020629.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    c. months before her unit got orders to deploy, she started having child care problems. On 6 June 2003, she was notified of her pending discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct (patterns of misconduct). However, there is no evidence of record which shows she was discharged for hardship/parenthood.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100738C070208

    Original file (2004100738C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 25 August 1989, the applicant’s unit commander notified him of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a based on minor disciplinary infractions and advised him of his rights. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant submitted a request for a hardship discharge or that he met the criteria for a hardship discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009006

    Original file (20100009006.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 November 1989, he was advised by his company commander of action being initiated to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations–Enlisted Separation), paragraph 14-12b, with a general discharge, for misconduct-pattern of misconduct. On 24 November 1989, he was separated in pay grade E-2 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct-pattern of misconduct with a general discharge. There is no...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006029

    Original file (20140006029.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). On 7 September 1989, the applicant's company commander notified him he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, and that he was recommending issuance of a GD Certificate. ____________X___________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016840

    Original file (20090016840.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007349

    Original file (20100007349.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 January 1989, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations), chapter 14-12b, for patterns of misconduct. He states he loves his wife and children and wants to do what is right for them and does not want to get out of the Army. The evidence of record shows he was medically cleared for separation under chapter 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200, and there is no...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608189C070209

    Original file (9608189C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 8 November 1991, the applicant’s commander advised the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him for his patterns of misconduct under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and of his rights. On 17 January 1992, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-2, under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b (misconduct-pattern of misconduct), with a general discharge under honorable conditions. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120008372

    Original file (AR20120008372.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable. Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated 23 April 2012 with self-authored statement; Court Orders, dated 6 January 2012; DD Form 214 for service under current...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072675C070403

    Original file (2002072675C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Before initiating action to separate the applicant, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about noted deficiencies which could lead to separation. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or...