Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711819
Original file (9711819.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his discharge was too harsh and his post-service conduct has been good. He submits as supporting evidence two officer evaluation reports (OERs) and statements of support.

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

He was born on 3 April 1967. He completed 16 years of formal education. He was ordered to active duty as a second lieutenant on 17 March 1991. He completed officer basic course and served as a 92A (Quartermaster, General). The highest rank he held was first lieutenant.

His OERs for the periods ending 30 June 1993 and 8 May 1994 show the applicant to be an outstanding officer; potential excellent.

On 7 September 1994, the applicant tendered his unqualified resignation from the Army.

On 12 September 1994, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongful use of cocaine and hydrocone and wrongful possession of hydrocone pills. His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $1,000 pay for 2 months, that in excess of $500 pay suspended for 2 months. He appealed the Article 15 but the appeal was denied.

On 2 November 1994, Headquarters, Department of the Army approved the applicant’s unqualified resignation and directed he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

On 15 January 1995, he was discharged with a character of service of “under honorable conditions,” (a general discharge) in pay grade O-2. He had completed 3 years, 9 months and 29 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

Army Regulation 635-120, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the release from active duty and discharge of officer personnel. The character of service would be predicated on the officer’s behavior and performance while a member of the Army. Characterization would normally be based on a pattern of behavior and duty performance rather than an isolated incident. However, there were circumstances in which conduct reflected by a single incident could provide the basis of characterization of service. A separation under honorable conditions would normally be appropriate when an officer submits an unqualified resignation under circumstances involving misconduct or was separated based on misconduct, including misconduct for which punishment was imposed, which renders the officer unsuitable for further service, unless an under other than honorable conditions separation would be appropriate.

 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. The applicant’s separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3. The type of discharge given was appropriate considering the seriousness of the misconduct with which the applicant was charged and the applicant’s age and rank.

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

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004096

    Original file (20090004096.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel states the applicant was constructively discharged as a result of the actions of his supervisor (at Fort Lewis). Counsel states the applicant's counseling also targeted him for inadequate documentation using the new AHLTA. Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) provides, in pertinent part, that under normal circumstances, any Regular Army officer or USAR officer who has completed their 8-year military service obligation may submit a request for unqualified...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008502

    Original file (20130008502.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He served 11 years on active duty worldwide as a commissioned officer in the rank of captain (CPT). Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1370, states in order to be credited with satisfactory service in an officer rank/grade below the rank/grade of lieutenant colonel a person must have served satisfactorily in that rank/grade as a Reserve commissioned officer in an active status, or in a retired status on active duty, for not less than 6 months. The evidence of record shows while serving on active...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005104C070205

    Original file (20060005104C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 4 February 1991, a general officer notified the applicant of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-100 (Personnel Separations - Officer Personnel), paragraph 5-10b because of substandard performance of duty; and paragraphs 5-11a(4), 5-11a(5) and paragraph 5-11(8) because of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction or in the interest of national security. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004229

    Original file (20090004229.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ) be transferred to the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). However, for reasons not explained in the available records, the applicant was honorably discharged, on 27 February 2002, under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24a(1), due to unacceptable conduct. However, for reasons not explained in the available records, the applicant's DD Form...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002359

    Original file (20150002359.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests the following: * a medical discharge * promotion to the rank of major (MAJ) * removal of the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)), for the period 1 March 2009 through 13 September 2011 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER), from his official military personnel file (OMPF) * expeditious processing of his application * a personal appearance 2. His case would not be referred to the Physical Evaluation Board. On the contested OER his SR commented, "the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606851C070209

    Original file (9606851C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be retroactively promoted to major, USAR, and that his transfer to the USAR Control Group (Retired) be corrected to having his name placed on the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL), rated disabled. In addition, he was medically unfit at the time of his separation as a result of injuries he suffered on his civilian job, and should have been medically retired due to those disabilities. On 13 February 1985 he accepted a commission as a captain, USAR, assigned...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024196

    Original file (20100024196.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Item 3 (Summary of offenses, pleas, and findings) of a DA Form 4430-R, dated 3 April 1991, shows the applicant was charged with the offense of conduct unbecoming an officer by engaging in conversations and discussions to commit murder, in violation of Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The letter noted a DA Form 4833 (Commander’s Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Act ) reflected that he underwent a general court-martial and was found guilty of conduct...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501504

    Original file (ND0501504.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge IV: Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Specification 1: In that Lieutenant Junior Grade S_ J. D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, USS STETHEM, on active duty, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Commanding Officer, USS STETHEM, to wit: NONPUNITIVE LETTER OF CAUTION, dated December 02, 2002, an order which it was her duty to obey, did, on or about Dec 03, 2002, fail to obey the same by wrongfully continuing a personal relationship with GM2 R_ D. M_. Specification 2: In that Lieutenant...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010535

    Original file (20130010535.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He requests an upgrade of his discharge and characterization of service in order to be eligible for VA benefits. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged from the Army in the rank of major on 16 November 2010, under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b. If a physical or mental condition develops after an officer has been recommended for involuntary separation or after the Board of Inquiry proceedings are completed, the officer's commander will immediately notify the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006330C070208

    Original file (20040006330C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He now requests that he be promoted and now be given a promotion and retirement ceremony he never received. As a result, he had already been removed from the promotion list and was in a non-promotable status in October 2003. The regulation stipulates that in order to successfully appeal an OER, the applicant must provide clear and convincing evidence of a compelling nature to show action is necessary to correct a material error, injustice or inaccuracy.