| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her discharge be voided and that she be reinstated to active duty with entitlement to all back pay and allowances.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she was unjustly discharged from the Army and should be reinstated to active duty because the evidence of record contains errors and constitutes an injustice to her. She also states that her discharge was not conducted in accordance with Department of Defense Directive 1332.14.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She initially served in the Air Force Reserve as an air passenger specialist from July 1976 to July 1979.
On 29 October 1986, she enlisted for a period of 2 years and training as a medical specialist. She completed her training and was transferred to Fort Bliss, Texas. While at Fort Bliss she extended her enlistment for a period of 38 months in order to accept enrollment into the Bonus Extension and Retraining (BEAR) Program as a Practical Nurse. She was enrolled and began training in the Bear Program at William Beaumont Army Medical Center in January 1989.
On 5 October 1989, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against her for failure to go to her place of duty. Her punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 (suspended for 90 days), a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 90 days) and extra duty. The applicant again failed to go to her place of duty and the suspended portion of her punishment was vacated on 11 October 1989.
On 3 November 1989 the applicant’s commander notified her that she was being recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s failure and unwillingness to develop sufficiently to participate in further training or become a satisfactory soldier, her failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions, her failure to conform to military standards, and her disciplinary record.
After consulting with counsel the applicant requested to appear before an administrative separation board and to be represented by counsel.
On 14 May 1990, she appeared before an administrative separation board in which testimony was given by the course director, her academic counselor, two instructors and the applicant. After hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence of record, the board determined (after a 1-hour recess) that the applicant had failed to successfully complete phase II of the 91C course, that she displayed an inability to practically apply skills, an unwillingness to accept authority, that she was not dependable or willing to be accountable for her actions, and that she lacked integrity. The board recommended that she be separated from the service for unsatisfactory performance and that she be issued an honorable discharge.
The appropriate authority (a brigadier general) approved the findings and recommendations of the board on 4 June 1990.
Accordingly, she was honorably discharged on 6 July 1990 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. She had served 3 years, 8 months and 8 days of active service during her current enlistment.
She applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 19 January 1995 requesting that the narrative reason and authority for her discharge be changed to a more favorable reason. The ADRB determined that her discharge and the reasons therefore were correct and voted unanimously to deny her request.
She applied to this Board on 6 June 2000 requesting that the Board change her discharge to reflect a more favorable narrative reason and authority for discharge. She cited essentially the same reasons as she cited to the ADRB. The Board determined that she had been properly discharged and denied her request on 15 February 2001.
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsatisfactory performance and who were unsuitable for further military service. An individual could be separated for unsatisfactory performance if it was determined that the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. Although an honorable or general discharge may be issued, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, last reissued on 21 December 1993, updates policies, responsibilities, and procedures governing the administrative separation of enlisted members of the Military Services. Army Regulation 635-200 is essentially this directive put into Army Regulation format and terms.
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 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.
3. The applicant’s contentions and supporting documents have been noted by the Board. However, they are not supported by the evidence of record or the evidence submitted by the applicant with her application.
4. 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 this requirement.
5. 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
___kan__ __reb ___ __rjw ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001055122 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/10/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1990/07/06 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | 572/UNSAT PERF |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 572 | 144.4900/A49.00 UNSAT PERF |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090797C070212
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 | CY2006 | 20060000504C070205
James Hastie | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 11 July 1990, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074150C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her general discharge be upgraded to honorable. The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that her discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011971C070206
The applicant requests that his general discharge due to unsatisfactory performance be upgraded to an honorable discharge by reason of physical disability. The documents provided by the applicant show that as of 14 June 2005, the applicant is rated by the VA as being as 80% disabled and for VA purposes is considered 100% totally disabled. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003730C070205
On 7 December 1989, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to bar the applicant from reenlistment. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 17 August 1990, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012215C071029
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 March 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060012215 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any medical documents indicating the applicant was treated for, or suffered from a disabling mental or physical condition at the time of her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013254
x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064192C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. His request was approved on 13 February 1986. The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | AR20060016903C071029
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. A memorandum for personnel record that was completed by the applicant's commanding officer on 10 September 1990 indicates that he was counseled for poor duty performance and personal problems that resulted in reported abuse cases; and that he was given a 30-day notice in which he would be evaluated for any reoccurring incidents or problems. A review of the available records fail to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063346C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The convening authority approved the sentence on 29 April 1983; however, he set aside the portion of the sentence pertaining to the forfeiture of pay on 9 May 1983. On 17 October 1983, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, based on his disciplinary record.