| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Robert J. McGowan | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: That he was not properly counseled when he was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 30 June 1997. Following completion of all required military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B, Infantryman, and sent to airborne training. He completed airborne training and was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
While at Fort Bragg, the applicant received a summarized NJP for violating a lawful regulation (drinking while underage). He also received a field grade NJP for wrongful appropriation of government property (a smoke grenade).
On 14 September 1999, the applicant's unit commander notified him that he was being recommended for separation with a GD under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct. The applicant acknowledged notification on 6 October 1999 and declined, in writing, to consult with legal counsel. The intermediate commander reviewed the separation packet and also recommended separation with a GD. On 12 October 1999, the approval authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be separated with a GD.
The applicant was separated with a GD on 3 November 1999. He had 2 years, 4 months, and 4 days of creditable service and no lost time.
The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade. The ADRB, after considering his case on 9 May 2001, denied his request.
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, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absences without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.
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 NJPs were imposed in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and policies. The punishments imposed were neither unjust nor disproportionate to the offenses, and there is no evidence of any substantive violation of any of the applicant's rights. The policies and procedures governing the imposition of nonjudicial punishment are set out in Title 10, United States Code, section 815 (Article 15, UCMJ), and in Army Regulation 27-10, chapter 3. In this case, there is no evidence of departure from those established policies or procedures.
3. 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.
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
__lls____ __mhm __ __jtm____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057069 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010906 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19991103 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | DIRECTOR |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058577C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He did not complete his airborne training and received orders transferring him to Fort Lewis, Washington with a report date of 25 April 1971.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074152C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 4 October 1999, the applicant's company commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, for misconduct. However, the ADRB found the applicant's DD Form 214 to be administratively incorrect and directed that the separation authority be changed to "AR 635-200 CHAPTER 14-12C," the separation code as "JKQ," and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000530C070206
On 17 November 1983, the brigade commander directed that the applicant be discharged from the United States Army under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. On 2 October 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067223C070402
On 12 September 2000, the applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial with a UOTHC discharge. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088302C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 24 February 1976, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to his conviction by civil authorities. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051726C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 12 January 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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 | CY2001 | 2001065298C070421
This action was taken by Fort Bragg, in spite of the fact that the applicant had clearly been present for duty at the PCF, Fort Knox, for eight months and had successfully completed a rehabilitation program. A Personnel Action (DA Form 4187), dated 19 October 1999, prepared by the PCF, Fort Knox, changed the applicant’s duty status from present for duty to AWOL, effective 15 October 1999, and on 29 December 1999, the applicant returned to military control at the PCF, Fort Knox. However, it...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062936C070421
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. On 23 May 1978, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 35-600, chapter 14, for misconduct with a general discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s discharge was based on his misconduct.
ARMY | DRB | CY1997 | 199701526
Type of discharge (or characterization of service): GD2. Action requested: ( X ) Recharacterization ( ) Change of Reason PART III - SERVICE HISTORYSECTION A - Period of Service Under Review 1. 961211: Applicant is separated.2.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130000538
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 May 2013 CASE NUMBER: AR20130000538 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. The applicant was informed in a memorandum that he...