| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Michael L. Engle. | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. Eric N. Anderson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he believes his discharge should be based upon medical reasons and be fully honorable.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Army on 17 June 1980 for 3 years. He successfully completed his initial training and was assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for duty as a short range gunnery crewman (16R). He attained the rank of private first class, E-3, on 1 September 1981 and was subsequently reassigned to the Federal Republic of Germany on 17 December 1981. On 13 September 1982, the applicant returned to the United States without completing his overseas tour of duty.
The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 8 to 9 November 1980
(2 days). There is no record that disciplinary action was taken in connection with this infraction.
On 22 November 1982, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for AWOL, three specifications, totaling 13 days; for wrongful possession of marijuana; for wrongfully disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer; and for wrongfully disobeying a general order. The punishment included a reduction to private, E-1, a forfeiture of $285.00 per month for 2 months, and 60 days restriction. The applicant did not appeal the punishment.
On 1 December 1982, after notification of the commander’s intent to separate him from the service, the applicant consulted with counsel, and elected to make a statement in his own behalf. He felt that his commander should give him an honorable discharge on the basis of his 2 years and 5 months of good service.
On 2 December 1982, the applicant underwent a mental evaluation. No overt mental illness was noted and the applicant was found to have the ability to understand all proceedings relevant to the administrative discharge process.
On 3 December 1982, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.
On 3 December 1982, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate. He further directed that the applicant not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.
On 6 December 1982, he was discharged accordingly, after having completed a total of 2 years, 5 months and 5 days of creditable active military service and having accrued 15 days lost time due to AWOL.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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, and 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.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. The applicant has not provided the Board with any argument or evidence to clarify why he should have received a separation based upon a medical condition.
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
__RVO_ __ HOF __ __ENA__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057618 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/07/26 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19821206 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, Chpt 13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A67.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056343C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001056343SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20010830TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19820311DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, CHAPTER 10 DISCHARGE REASONA70.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.144.70002.3.4.5.6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075789C070403
On 30 December 1980, NJP was imposed against the applicant for wrongfully having in his possession 1 gram, more or less, of marihuana on 16 December 1980. 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: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002075789SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20021119TYPE OF DISCHARGE(GD)DATE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063346C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The convening authority approved the sentence on 29 April 1983; however, he set aside the portion of the sentence pertaining to the forfeiture of pay on 9 May 1983. On 17 October 1983, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, based on his disciplinary record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056930C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 29 April 1982. Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063479C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 21 March 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for upgrade of his discharge.Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000900
On 25 February 1982, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge and reduction to private/E-1. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. _______ _ X _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090931C070212
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 this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3-year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. On 24 May 1982, NJP was imposed against the applicant for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001066C070206
The application submitted in this case is dated 18 January 2005. On 29 July 1982, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200, due to alcohol rehabilitation failure, with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions. 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 this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001066C070206
On 29 July 1982, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200, due to alcohol rehabilitation failure, with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions. The applicant submitted medical documentation to show that he was in fact assaulted and that he received medical treatment for his injuries received. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029871
There is no evidence in the available records to show the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Paragraph 3-7b of Army Regulation 635-200 also provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.