Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711672
Original file (9711672.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES : He was never given counseling for his home sickness. He was simply home sick from being overseas at 19 years old.

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

He was born on 19 January 1965. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 29 October 1982, he entered the Delayed Entry Program and on 7 September 1983, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19E (Armor Crewman).

On 4 April 1985, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for disobeying a lawful order from his superior non-commissioned officer and being disrespectful in language towards the same.

On 30 April 1985, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for breaking restriction.

On 19 June 1985, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for disobeying a lawful order, wrongfully possessing a smoking device (a Schedule I controlled substance), a sword and hashish.

Prior to initiation of separation proceedings, the applicant received at least eight counseling statements for infractions such as failure to repair, violating room security, poor military appearance, and below standard job performance. He was given a within-company rehabilitative transfer between platoons.

On 25 June 1985, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation. He also completed a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally competent, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to be mentally capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings.

On 3 July 1985, the applicant’s commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. His recommendation cited a set pattern of disobedience to the officers and non-commissioned officers appointed over him, living area far below standards and constant need of supervision. He requested a waiver of the rehabilitative transfer requirement because he was convinced the applicant was beyond rehabilitation.

The applicant acknowledged that he was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel. He waived representation by counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. He acknowledged that he understood he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were to be issued to him.

On 10 July 1985, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that he be given a general discharge.

On 29 July 1985, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance, with a general discharge. He had completed 1 year, 10 months and 23 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 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.

On 15 January 1997, 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 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.

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 | CY2002 | 2002068801C070402

    Original file (2002068801C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: On 30 December 1985, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9609778C070209

    Original file (9609778C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 April 1985, the applicant was found physically qualified for separation under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. On 3 April 1985, the applicant’s commander submitted a request recommending that the applicant be separated for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates that he was discharged on 18 April 1985, in pay grade E-1, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance, with a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074735C070403

    Original file (2002074735C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2009 | 20090015045

    Original file (20090015045.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 April 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090015045 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant’s commander signed an elimination packet on the applicant for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant signed a statement indicating that he was advised he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511651C070209

    Original file (9511651C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 September 1994, the commander notified the applicant that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. On 4 October 1994, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023504

    Original file (20100023504.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    During its original review of the case, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to warrant correction of items 4a, 4b, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 30, and accordingly denied his request. Chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when, in the commander's judgment, the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105253C070208

    Original file (2004105253C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 March 1985, the applicant's commander recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that on 22 March 1985, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance with a GD. The applicant's discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087383C070212

    Original file (2003087383C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 24 November 1986, the separation authority waived the request for a rehabilitative transfer, approved the recommendation for separation, and directed the applicant be given a general discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 25 November 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069740C070402

    Original file (2002069740C070402.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. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. In pertinent part, Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084240C070212

    Original file (2003084240C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: There is no evidence of record and the applicant has provided no evidence, which supports his contention that he was entitled to a medical separation. The applicant’s record shows that he was found medically fit for separation in October 1986 after his mental and medical examination.