Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711618
Original file (9711618.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her discharge be upgraded to honorable and that the reason for her discharge be changed to either “drug and alcohol or medical.”
APPLICANT STATES : It was not her fault she was separated. She was forced to withdraw her obligation. Because the veterans were selling drugs and distributing counterfeit money around Tennessee.

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

She was born on 18 June 1963. She completed 12 years of formal education. On 19 February 1982, she enlisted in the Army Reserve. On 7 October 1986, she entered the Delayed Entry Program and on 30 October 1986, she enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years in pay grade E-2. She completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76Y (Supply Specialist).

The applicant had received a number of counseling statements for such actions/infractions as failure to repair, failure to pay utility bill, low Skill Qualification Test (SQT) score, and attitude and initiative below standard.

In September 1987, the applicant was apprehended for driving while under the influence of alcohol.

On 12 November 1987, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to prepare a Family Care Plan, absenting herself from her place of duty with intent to avoid a field exercise, making a false statement about not having her TA-50 and several other related specifications.

On 13 November 1987, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. She was found to be mentally responsible and mentally capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings.

There was no evidence in her medical records to show she ever underwent treatment for other than “normal” illnesses/injuries.

On 16 December 1987, the applicant’s commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.

On 16 December 1987, the applicant acknowledged that she was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel. She waived representation by counsel and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf. She acknowledged that she understood she may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were to be issued to her.

On 17 December 1987, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that she be given a general discharge.

On 29 December 1987, she was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance, with a general discharge. She had completed 1 year and 2 months 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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

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. The applicant’s administrative separation as accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2. 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.

3. In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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 | CY2003 | 2003090797C070212

    Original file (2003090797C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Accordingly, she was discharged under honorable conditions on 14 August 1987, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006000C070206

    Original file (20050006000C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that she was discharged on 12 February 1987, under the provisions of Chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635- 200, for unsatisfactory performance, issued a General Discharge Certificate with service characterized as under honorable conditions, and given a reenlistment code of RE-3. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of her discharge. Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001775

    Original file (20090001775.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 05 MAY 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090001775 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states that her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflects that she was released from active duty (REFRAD) under honorable conditions due to unsatisfactory performance. Accordingly, she was REFRAD under honorable conditions on 18 March 1987, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710976

    Original file (9710976.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Complete medical records are not available. On 4 December 1990, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020907

    Original file (20140020907.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states: * he requested a discharge upgrade twice and was denied * he just got his medical records 3. The psychiatrist recommended consideration of the applicant for administrative action as deemed appropriate by his command, to include separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11. Although medical evidence provided by the applicant shows he was being evaluated/pending an MEB for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066728C070402

    Original file (2002066728C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. In March 1987 his unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. In January 1990 the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008029

    Original file (20090008029.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 April 1986, the report of mental status evaluation shows that the applicant was psychiatrically cleared to participate in any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command. No medical evidence has been presented by the applicant to demonstrate an injustice in the medical treatment received in service. Consequently, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request to correct his records to show that he was medically retired.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070011955

    Original file (20070011955.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that the narrative reason and separation code be changed on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation date of 19 May 1988. The applicant states, in effect, that her current DD Form 214 lists the narrative reason as "unsatisfactory performance" and the separation code as "JHJ" which she states is an injustice in that she now believes that her personal conduct and behavior that she exhibited on active duty was the result of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120018068

    Original file (20120018068.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 December 1988, her unit commander recommended that she be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. The evidence of record shows the applicant was recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-2, for unsatisfactory performance with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. During her separation process, she acknowledged she could reenlist in the U.S. Army 2...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014350

    Original file (20100014350.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant did not provide any evidence. On 9 March 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance with the issuance of a general discharge under honorable conditions. Her general discharge is commensurate with her overall record of military service.