| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that at the time of his departure from the military he was told that he would receive a honorable discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That on 29 October 1991, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 5 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B (Military Police). He completed basic training and advanced individual training and, on 25 March 1992, he was assigned to Germany.
On 26 May 1994, the applicant received an administrative Letter of Reprimand
for making obscene gestures (grabbing his crotch) and using profanity on 8 May 1994.
On 9 June 1994, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for making three prank calls and orally communicating indecent language to a female on 22 and
24 April 1994, while on duty as a military policeman. His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-2, forfeiture of $466.00 pay for 1 month and 30 days' extra duty.
On 25 August 1994, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by professionally trained personnel and he was determined to be mentally responsible and qualified for separation and he had no psychiatric disorder or defect which warranted disposition through medical channels.
On 21 October 1994, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for commission of a serious offense with a GD. The commander cited the above offenses as the basis for his recommendation.
On the same date, the applicant consulted with legal counsel. He was advised of the nature of the contemplated separation action and its effects. He was also advised of the rights available to him. He was not entitled to an administrative separation hearing by a board of officers. The applicant submitted a statement in which he contended that the military police co-worker who alleged that he made the prank calls was wrong. He stated that he made no such calls.
On 10 November 1994, the intermediate commander recommended that the applicant be separated with a GD.
On 16 November 1994, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be separated with a GD and that he was not to be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.
On 13 December 1994, the applicant was separated with a GD, for misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200. He had completed 3 years, 1 month, and 15 days of creditable military service.
On 4 April 2001 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may also be awarded.
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 this requirement.
2. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. During the initiation of the separation action, the applicant was notified in writing that he could receive a GD. He also signed his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) at the time of separation which indicated that he had received a GD.
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
__RJW__ __KWL__ __PM ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001055599 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010920 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 941213 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Chapter 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A67.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (NC) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.6700 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067634C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On an unknown date, the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be separated with a GD and not to be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve. She had completed 2 years, 3 months, and 9 days of creditable military service and she had no recorded lost time.On 30 January 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014659
He was convicted of the wrong crime as it relates to the assault, although he admits to being guilty of conspiracy to assault. Personnel acting as Military Police are one of these special categories by virtue of the fact that it is their job to enforce the law. The applicant contends that drugs and or alcohol were factors in the offenses; however, the record contains no documentation to support that the applicant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time he committed the acts.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087268C070212
A board of officers was appointed on or about 3 August 1999 to determine whether he should be discharged for misconduct. He avers that the board president and the two board members could not be impartial because of their relationship to the appointing authority, and that there was undue and improper influence on all members of the board or at the very least an appearance of impropriety. On 3 August 1999 the Commanding General of the 77th RSC appointed a board of officers pursuant to Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016289C071029
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 12 February 1991, the applicant’s commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for commission of a serious offense (assault). Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063153C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The ADRB determined that his discharge and the reasons therefore were proper and unanimously denied his request on 15 November 1996. The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064006C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : His wife put him in debt and led to his discharge. On 11 January 1995, the applicant's commander initiated action to separate the applicant for misconduct (pattern of misconduct) under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086242C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Based on the applicant’s disciplinary record and poor duty performance, his unit commander recommended his discharge under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct. The Board notes the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded in order to enhance his civilian career opportunities and it carefully considered the letters of support he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707956
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 | CY1997 | 9707966
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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074845C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. She cites the evidence presented to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to substantiate her case. On 10 November 1999 the applicant was separated with a general discharge for misconduct.