| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant provides no statement in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted and entered active duty on 10 May 1988 with prior Reserve Component service. While still in training he was Absent Without Leave for 5 days. After completing training as a Bradley mechanic he was assigned to Germany.
Counseling statements from December 1988 through April 1991 discuss the applicant’s problems with indebtedness, weight control, and failure to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). On 7 May 1991 the applicant was informed of the commander’s intent to recommend him for separation for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant acknowledged receipt and, after consulting with counsel, waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The commander forwarded his recommendation that the applicant be separated for unsatisfactory performance based on six APFT failures, indebtedness, failure to turn-in his weapon from guard duty, and failure to follow instructions. The recommendation also noted that he had been barred from reenlistment on 25 April 1991.
The separation authority approved the recommendation on 14 May 1991 and directed separation under honorable conditions. Effective 10 June 1991 the applicant was separated from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. He had 3 years and 26 days creditable service and 5 days lost time.
On 2 May 2001, that Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, voted to deny the applicant an upgrade of his general discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance. It provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.
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's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
2. 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.
3. 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
___ls___ ___jm___ ___mm__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057112 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010906 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19910610 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 CH 13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A49.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013688
On 1 October 1991, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of her (the commander's) intent to initiate separation action against her (the applicant) in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of unsatisfactory performance. On 4 October 1991, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance and directed the applicant's service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078319C070215
On 20 November 1991, the applicant's commander submitted a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) recommending the applicant be separated under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, due to the failure of two consecutive APFT's on 30 October and 15 November 1991. The DD Form 214 shows no lost time.Pertinent Army regulations (AR) provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063016C070421
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. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it would have recommended...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104618C070208
James B. Gunlicks | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. It provides that an enlistment bonus is an enlistment incentive offered to those enlisting in the RA for duty in a specific MOS. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057186C070420
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 | CY2010 | 20100010178
The applicant states he was separated from the Army because he was overweight and couldn't pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). On 19 December 1988, the applicant's company commander notified him of her intent to separate him for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 13. There is no record the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board seeking a discharge upgrade during that board's 15-year statute of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076077C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 15 December 1993, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. He contended that his discharge was inequitable because the incidents that served as the basis for his discharge were minor and did not warrant his discharge, and especially nothing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005987C070206
The applicant states that he was discharged because he was performing his duties and that it has been almost 20 years since his discharge. After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to exercise his rights to counsel and requested copies of documents that would be sent to the separation authority supporting the proposed separation action. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079807C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. RE-1A applies to soldiers separated prior to the effective date of this regulation. The applicant has failed to show, through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record, that his separation which resulted in his receiving an RE Code of RE "3" was in error or unjust.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011971C070206
The applicant requests that his general discharge due to unsatisfactory performance be upgraded to an honorable discharge by reason of physical disability. The documents provided by the applicant show that as of 14 June 2005, the applicant is rated by the VA as being as 80% disabled and for VA purposes is considered 100% totally disabled. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that...