| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. June Hajjar | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas F. Baxter | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That there was a personality conflict between his first sergeant and himself which caused him to fall 7 months short of the period for which he enlisted. The changing of his status would greatly improve his education benefits.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 16 August 1995, the applicant enlisted in the Army.
On 13 March 1996, he was convicted by a Summary Court-Martial of carnal knowledge with a minor (sodomy, indecent acts with a child) on 1 January 1996. His sentence included a forfeiture of $583 pay per month for 1 month, restriction for 45 days and hard labor without confinement for 45 days.
On 2 July 1997, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for his failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 11 June 1997. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended), a forfeiture of $235 pay per month for 1 month, restriction for 14 days and extra duty for 14 days.
On 9 October 1997, he accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for his failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 3 and 15 September 1997. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-2, restriction for 14 days and extra duty for 14 days.
On 23 October 1997, a physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.
During the period April and October 1997, he was formally counseled on 18 occasions for his failure to go to his appointed place of duty, substandard performance of duty, failure to prepare for inspection, and for his failure to obey a lawful order.
On 25 November 1997, the unit commander notified the applicant of the initiation of a separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct, based on his patterns of misconduct (1 court-martial, 2 NJP’s and 18 formal counseling statements) and he was advised of his rights.
On 25 November 1997, the applicant, after consulting with legal counsel, acknowledged notification of his commander’s intent, declined counsel and elected to not make a statement in his own behalf.
On 2 December 1997, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed he receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
On 17 January 1998, he was discharged under the above-cited regulation. His separation document indicates he had 2 years, 4 months and 22 days of creditable service.
On 13 March 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade of his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. A specific category was patterns of misconduct. A general discharge was normally appropriate for a member who was discharged for patterns of misconduct.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
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 is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. His discharge was clearly caused by his misconduct.
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
__tfb___ _jmt___ _jh_ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001055854 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010816 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080196C070215
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. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter. The Board reviewed the applicant's record of service and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
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 | CY2002 | 2002073320C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 12 November 1997, his commander advised him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, based on his pattern of misconduct and of his rights. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077806C070215
In support of his application, he submits: a portion of his separation packet that shows a last minute change was made to his separation action after he had completed most of his out-processing; and an Army Discharge Review Boards (ADRB) case report showing that he was marginally denied an upgrade of his discharge by a 3 to 2 vote. On 18 September 1997, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct with a GD. Carl W. S....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057216C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the requirement for his entitlement to the Overseas Service Ribbon be waived and that his records be corrected to show his entitlement to marksmanship awards for the M-60, 9mm, M203 and M2 weapons qualification. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002238
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations for an upgrade of his discharge. The evidence shows his misconduct diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002936
On 20 October 1997, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for patterns of misconduct. There is no evidence the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000880
On 18 June 1999, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge. On 9 July 1999, he was discharged under honorable conditions (general discharge) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct (patterns of misconduct). Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079157C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 24 July 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intention to initiate separation action under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b, Army Regulation 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. On 7 November 2001, the separation authority disapproved retaining the applicant for 6 months and directed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083666C070212
On 9 August 1988, the applicant's commander officially notified him that he was being recommended for discharge with a GD under the provisions of chapter 14, AR 635-200, for misconduct due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. However, the disqualification may not be waivable for certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment, bars to reenlistment, or separations under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation...