| Mr. | Fred K. McCoy | Chairperson | |
| Ms. | Margaret K. Patterson | Member | |
| Mr. | George D. Paxson | Member |
| Mr. | Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mr. | Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the reason for his discharge be changed to something other than convenience of the government.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the Army violated his enlistment contract and granted him an honorable discharge; that he was assured that he would receive VA benefits; that the VA now has denied his him his benefits because he is 2 months short of the 24 months required for education benefits.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 27 October 1987 the applicant entered the Regular Army for a period of
4 years. The applicant enlisted for training in career management field (CMF)
11 (Infantry), with options for airborne training and for a first assignment as a Ranger.
As part of the applicant’s enlistment contract he completed a DA Form 3260/6 (Statement For U. S. Army Enlistment Options -Continued) that was identified as Annex C to the contract. This annex contained information pertinent to the enrollment of the applicant in the G. I. Bill, and fully explained the eligibility criteria for participating in the program. The annex contained, in pertinent part, acknowledgments from the applicant that he understood enrollment in the G. I. Bill required deductions from his pay which were non refundable; in addition, the applicant indicated that he knew he would forfeit his entitlement to the G. I. Bill if he failed to complete his enlistment, unless separation was the result of a hardship, disability, or for the convenience of the government. It further defined that if the discharge was for the convenience of the government the applicant would have had to complete at least 30 months of his 4 year enlistment to be entitled to the benefit. The same page of Annex C that contains the above information on the applicant’s education benefits, also contains information on the applicant’s alternatives if the terms of his enlistment contract could not be fulfilled.
On 14 February 1989 the applicant voluntarily requested separation from the Army, under the provisions of chapter 7, AR 635-200, based on an unfulfilled enlistment commitment. In support of his request for separation, the applicant prepared a statement that was based on his extensive and careful reading of the terms of his enlistment contract. The applicant specifically relied on and quoted from his interpretation of Annex C of his contract, upon which he formed his conclusion, that he was eligible for discharge based on an unfulfilled enlistment contract.
On 9 June 1989 the Chief of the Separations Branch, of the Army Personnel Command, approved the applicant’s request for separation and directed his discharge, under the provisions of paragraph 7-16, AR 635-200, based on an unfulfilled enlistment commitment. Accordingly, on 27 October 1989 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 9 months, and 27 days of his 4 year enlistment.
On 10 December 1997 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.
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 Board concurs with the findings and conclusions of the ADRB and presumes that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. There is no indication of procedural errors by the ADRB which would tend to have substantially jeopardized the applicant's rights.
2. The Board concluded that the applicant’s contentions, that he was assured that he would receive VA benefits, and that he was only 2 months short of the
24 months required for his education benefits, are not supported by either the evidence of record or the independent evidence submitted by the applicant. However, the evidence of record does show that the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the convenience of the government, based on an unfulfilled enlistment commitment. Additionally, the evidence indicates the applicant took this action only after thoroughly reviewing the terms of his enlistment contract, specifically, Annex C, which contains the eligibility criteria for receiving education benefits, and clearly establishes that the applicant would not be eligible for education benefits if he did not complete at least 30 months of his 4 year enlistment.
3. 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.
4. 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 | 9706474
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. When an individual is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705469
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. He was sentenced to 6...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705839
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 indicated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706474C070209
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she would like the reason for her discharge changed in order to be entitled to education benefits; that she believes that in almost all pregnancy cases there is hardship involved and should be considered as such on an exception basis. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: On 7 May 1991 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years. The record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709541
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 26 May 1989 this Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708825
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. PURPOSE : To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711304
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 he application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. APPLICANT REQUESTS: A military enlistment bonus. He was advised at the time that although he received an upgrade from UD to Honorable on 6 June 1980 that does...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709821
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. PURPOSE : To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710247
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 he application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. PURPOSE : To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711026
APPLICANT REQUESTS : In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 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 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.