| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his narrative reason for discharge on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, be changed from “misconduct” to “unable to adapt.”
APPLICANT STATES: That he thinks he was given the wrong reason for discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 January 1999 for a period of 3 years. Following completion of all military training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63W, Wheel Vehicle Repairer, and was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia for his first permanent duty assignment.
On 17 December 1999, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for two specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty and one specification of willfully and unlawfully altering a public record, a DD Form 689, Individual Sick Slip. His punishment consisted of reduction to private/E-1, forfeiture of $223.00 pay and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.
On 17 February 2000, the applicant was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol and speeding (42 miles per hour in a 25-mile per hour zone).
On 6 March 2000, the applicant accepted an NJP for knowingly possessing and consuming an alcoholic beverage while under the age of 21 years. The applicant’s punishment for this NJP is not in the available records.
On 24 April 2000, the applicant was medically evaluated and cleared for separation.
On 25 April 2000, the applicant accepted an NJP for three specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty. The applicant’s punishment for this NJP is not in the available records.
On 26 April 2000, the applicant was given a mental status evaluation and found to be mentally competent and cleared for separation.
The applicant was counseled on numerous occasions regarding his duty performance and misconduct. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to any sort of rehabilitation.
On 2 June 2000, the applicant was notified that his company commander was initiating action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct.
On 6 June 2000, after being advised by counsel of the contemplated separation action under the provisions of chapter 14, AR 635-200, the applicant declined to submit a statement in his own behalf and waived a hearing before a board of officers contingent upon his receiving a general discharge.
On 14 June 2000, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation with a general discharge. Accordingly, on 26 June 2000, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 1 year, 5 months, and 6 days of creditable military service.
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.
The record indicates the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to change his reason for discharge on 20 July 2001.
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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service and the narrative reason for separation appropriately reflects why the applicant was separated.
3. The applicant's belief that the wrong reason for discharge was applied to his DD Form 214 is without merit. The applicant acknowledged his commander's decision to separate him under the provisions of chapter 14, AR 635-200, for misconduct. He consulted with legal counsel who explained the separation action to him in detail. There is no way he could have been led to believe that he was being separated by reason of "unable to adapt."
4. 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
__JHL __ __MDM _ __JAM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001056802 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011011 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 20000626 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, c14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Pattern of Misconduct |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Director |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.9455 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070848C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On an unknown date, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct – patterns of misconduct. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003754
Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Chairperson Member Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The SPD code of JKK is the appropriate code to assign Soldiers separated under the provisions Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12c, by reason of misconduct (Abuse of Illegal Drugs). However, by regulation, the RE-4 code assigned to the applicant was the proper code to assign members separating...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087903C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant provides: a. Counsel adds that the applicant's commander recommended him for a GD when an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is considered normal in order to deprive applicant the opportunity to have his case heard by an impartial board of officers from outside his direct chain of command.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130021214
The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates that on 24 January 2000, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct, specifically for the following offenses: a making a false and fictitious statement to an NCO; b. failing to be at his appointed place of duty on several occasions; c. missing movement; and d. being AWOL. In an undated...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013210
Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 04 Mos, 03 Days ????? Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconductpattern of misconduct (violations of the UCMJ), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110000387
The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicants military records, and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130013539
The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates that on 8 August 2000, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct, specifically for the following offenses: a. failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (FTRs); b. numerous derelictions of duty; c. failing to obey lawful written orders; d. willfully disobeying...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021408
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant states he was discharged for misconduct (serious offense). Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 15 May 2007 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, due to misconduct (serious offense) with a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062295C070421
The applicant submits copies of documents related to his reductions in grade which include his company commander’s 12 January 2000 recommendation for separation, part of the proceedings of his 21 November 2000 Administrative Separation Board, a summary of his rehabilitation appointments recorded on two appointment information sheets, two court-martial charge sheets for cocaine use, a 26 June 2000 summary of rehabilitation services, and a 30 November 2000 letter from a private substance abuse...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060014550
The applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a...