| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Christopher J. Prosser | Member | |
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his narrative reason for separation be changed to “Convenience of the Government” instead of “MISCONDUCT PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT”.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he believes his military service was performed to the best of his ability and that “pattern of misconduct” is wrong, inaccurate and a stigmatizing label. He contends that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded his discharge to honorable in 1998 and that he assumed when his discharge was upgraded that the narrative reason for separation would also be changed. In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation, dated 23 April 2001; a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); and a copy of the ADRB proceedings, dated 1 August 1997.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 2 May 1990 and trained as a fighting vehicle infantryman.
Between 7 May 1991 and 6 May 1992 the applicant was counseled on numerous occasions for various infractions which include being late for duty, unsatisfactory appearance, sleeping on duty, failure to follow instructions, failure to comply with a direct order, failure to follow a lawful order and being absent from his appointed place of duty.
On 18 June 1992, the applicant was separated with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct (a pattern of misconduct). On 1 August 1997 the ADRB upgraded the applicant’s discharge to honorable and determined that the narrative reason for separation was proper and equitable.
Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows “MISCONDUCT PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT”.
Item 26 (Separation Code) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows “JKM”. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes), in effect at the time, states the reason for discharge based on separation code “JKM” is “Misconduct – pattern of misconduct” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, provides for discharge due to a
pattern of misconduct consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.
Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.
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 Board considered the applicant’s contention that his narrative reason for separation is wrong, inaccurate and a stigmatizing label. However, the governing regulation states that the reason for discharge based on separation code “JKM” is “Misconduct - pattern of misconduct” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b.
2. Evidence of record also shows that the ADRB reviewed the applicant’s case on 1 August 1997 and determined that his narrative reason for separation was proper and equitable.
3. The applicant was properly discharged in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of any of the applicant’s rights.
4. The narrative reason for separation used in the applicant’s case is correct and was applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.
5. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the narrative reason for separation issued to him was in error or unjust.
6. 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.
7. 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
RVO____ CJP_____ LDS____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001056650 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010830 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19920618 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 Chapter 14 Paragraph 14-12b |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct (a pattern of misconduct) |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028254
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to change his reentry eligibility (RE) code from RE-3 to RE-1 and the narrative reason for separation from Misconduct Pattern of Misconduct. He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004084
Army Regulation 635-5-1, which was in effect on the date of the applicant's discharge, shows that individuals separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b (emphasis added) would have a narrative reason of "Misconduct Pattern of Misconduct" applied to their DD Form 214. The evidence shows that the applicant's unit commander advised the applicant he was initiating action to separate him from the Army for a pattern of misconduct. This statement is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018140
On 14 June 2006, upon review of the applicant's application and personnel records, the ADRB determined his discharge was inequitable because the quality of his service did not warrant granting of a general discharge. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. The evidence of record shows he was recommended and approved for discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011779
On 25 January 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation action and directed that he be separated under the provisions of Paragraph 14-12b, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct, and that he receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table indicates that RE-3 is the proper code to assign members receiving a JKM SPD code. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014505
On 29 April 1992, her immediate commander initiated separation action against her in accordance with paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct a pattern of misconduct. The applicant was discharged accordingly on 19 May 1992. With respect to the narrative reason for separation, authority, and associated codes, her service records show she was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200 due to her pattern of misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017679
On 22 January 1986, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him for misconduct pattern of misconduct in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b and/or 14-12c. He acknowledged he: * understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him * understood he could be ineligible for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023751
After considering all of the evidence before it, the administrative separation board recommended the applicant be separated from the Army with an under other than honorable conditions discharge based on his established pattern of misconduct and for serious misconduct. On 3 April 1984, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003564C070205
On 15 March 1985, the appropriate separation authority waived rehabilitative transfer and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12b for pattern of misconduct with issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged from active duty on 25 March 1985 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct - pattern of misconduct. Kenneth Wright________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX |CASE ID...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005782
The applicant requests, in effect, the following corrections to her military record in two separate applications: a. upgrade of her general under honorable conditions discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD), b. change to reason for discharge to convenience of the government, c. change to reentry eligibility (RE) code to RE-1, d. change to separation program designator (SPD) code, and e. change to separation authority and narrative reason for separation. There is no evidence the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011840
On 1 August 1989, consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the administrative discharge and ordered the applicant discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. His discharge was appropriate because the quality...