| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. E. Schnupp | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable and he be authorized to receive his Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his chapter 14 discharge for misconduct be upgraded so that he can receive the MGIB benefits he paid for. He submits no evidence in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 16 July 1993 at age 19 and received a general discharge for misconduct on 23 January 1995 after completing 1 year, 5 months and 18 days of service.
His awards include the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.
Enlistment documents completed at the time of his entry into the service show that he completed DD Form 2366 (MGIB) indicating that he wished to participate in the MGIB program.
Between April and September 1994 he received written counseling for failure to meet the weight standards for the Army Physical Fitness Test, failure to report to formation on time, bad checks and on three occasions for failure to pay debts.
On 21 June 1994 the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to pay his debts. Punishment included reduction to the grade of private, suspended, extra duty and restriction.
On 23 August 1994 the applicant’s commander imposed a bar to his reenlistment and on 11 December 1994, reduced him to the grade of private for misconduct/inefficiency for failure to manage his finances, which resulted in his being confined by civilian authorities for several days.
On 27 December 1994 the applicant’s commander recommended that he be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, (patterns of misconduct) with a general discharge, for bad checks and indebtedness. After consultation with counsel, the applicant was advised that he was not entitled to a hearing before an administrative separation board but that he could submit a statement on his own behalf to the separation authority who would consider his case. He opted not to submit a statement but did request copies of the documents supporting the proposed separation.
On 3 January 1995 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation with a General Discharge Certificate.
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge on 13 June 1995. That request was denied on 4 February 1997.
The MGIB, as outlined in Title 38, United States Code, chapter 30, section 1411(b), provides for soldiers who entered the service after 30 June 1985, to be automatically enrolled and to contribute $1,200.00 during their first 12 months service, which is nonrefundable. After completion of their service obligation, he or she is entitled to receive up to $300.00 per month educational benefits for 36 months. The program is administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). DVA regulations specify that if a soldier is separated prior to the normal expiration of his or her term of service, the separation must be for hardship, medical disability or for the convenience of the government. Also, he or she must have served in excess of 20 months for an enlistment of less than 3 years, and in excess of 30 months for an enlistment of 3 years or more. In all cases, the soldier’s service must be considered fully honorable.
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 conduct during his relatively short period of service tends to indicate that the general discharge he received was appropriate under the circumstance. Since he has submitted nothing to support his request for upgrading his discharge and since his record contains no indication that his rights were violated during the discharge process, the Board has insufficient grounds to upgrade the discharge.
2. Insofar as his request for MGIB benefits is concerned, it appears that he does not meet the requirements for the MGIB as stated above. Nonetheless, since the MGIB is administered by the DVA, it is recommended the applicant contact the DVA regarding his eligibility for benefits.
3. 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
___pm___ ____kjw _ ___kwl _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001055281 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010920 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19950123 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, chap 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 144.0135 | |
| 2. 144.07 | |
| 3. 144.67 | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069260C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The specific reason for the Article 15 is not in the file but was related to violating suspended driving privileges. On 14 March 1997, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to separate the applicant for a pattern of misconduct under paragraph 14-12b, Army Regulation 635-200.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011488C070208
The ADRB, after considering his case on 16 January 1997, denied his request. 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 exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03417
He receive a disability retirement. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change to the records is warranted and states, in part, that the evidence indicates that applicant had long term problems beginning in childhood that stabilized and improved during military service but progressed following his separation. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054011C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That upon enlisting in the Army in 1995, she enrolled in the MGIB. However, her records indicate that prior to her entry on active duty she acknowledged on the appropriate enlistment document that she was not eligible for the MGIB.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058910C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The MGIB, as outlined in Title 38, United States Code, chapter 30, section 1411b, provides for soldiers who entered the service after 30 June 1985 to contribute $1,200.00 to the program during their first 12 months of service. The records reflect that an education counselor did counsel the applicant that he would receive partial MGIB benefits.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104677C070208
The applicant provides: a. e. Copies of his enlistment documents showing that he enlisted for the MGIB Army College Fund (ACF). AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) provides that Soldiers separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 16-5 shall receive a separation code of KGH and a narrative reason for separation of "Non-Retention on Active Duty."
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002175
The applicant states: * his discharge was unjust because it was based on one incident * his total honorable military service was not considered during his separation proceedings * he made some bad decisions, which caused him to be separated from active duty * his loss of the MGIB was unfair considering he served honorably until his misconduct 3. On 26 June 1994, the applicant was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Based on his record of indiscipline which...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057540C070420
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. APPLICANT STATES : That he...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03631
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03631 INDEX CODE: 110.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 MAY 2008 ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her discharge be changed from an “honorable” to a “medical” discharge. A1B states the applicant unfortunately is not eligible to receive MGIB benefits after separating from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020684
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 26 June 1995, the applicant's commander recommended his separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.