| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he "suffered at the hands of [his] commander" and was harassed by him. He states that his roommate placed a package on his bed and he picked it up just as a member of the CID (Criminal Investigation Division) entered the room. He maintains his commander was prejudiced. He states that at the end of his time at the retraining brigade he was given the choice of "separating from [his] fiancée or leaving the military" and, "being young," he accepted the discharge to "be relieved from further harassment from this officer." In support of his request he submits a self-authored statement.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 19 May 1981 at the age of 20, with 12 years of formal education. He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was assigned to Germany as a vehicle mechanic in November 1981.
Shortly after his arrival in Germany, he was promoted to pay grade E-2, and in April 1982 he was promoted to E-3.
On 16 July 1982 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of possession and transfer of hashish. His sentence included reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture, and confinement at hard labor for 4 months.
He served approximately 42 days of his confinement at Fort Riley and was then assigned to the retraining brigade as a "trainee." In September 1982, while a member of the retraining brigade, he was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) for disobeying an order. A 29 September 1982 "training progress" report, completed by the applicant’s "acting" training commander, noted that the applicant's "performance while going through the training program has been below standards." The report noted the applicant received only one satisfactory rating during a four week rating period and that while he, "has demonstrated some positive areas he has failed the program by not being able to follow simple orders."
A 7 October 1982 report, completed by a Behavioral Science Specialist, indicated the applicant had been given "ample opportunity to earn a good
discharge, but this apparently wasn't important enough to him to put forth very much of an effort." The specialist indicated there was "no evidence of any type of personality disorder that would contribute to his poor performance” and cleared the applicant for any administrative action “deemed appropriate by the command."
On 18 October 1982, the applicant, after consulting with counsel, acknowledged receipt of a proposed administrative separation action and waived his attendant rights, including the right to submit statements in his own behalf.
The unit commander's recommendation was approved and on 29 October 1982 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.
In August 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.
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, and convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Generally a discharge under other than honorable conditions is appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.
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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.
2. There is no evidence, and the applicant has not submitted any, which demonstrates that he was the victim of prejudice. In fact, the Board notes that two different commanders, one from his unit at the time of his court-martial and a second while at the retraining brigade, were involved in his separation action.
3. 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 that requirement.
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
__AAO__ __LE____ __JTM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058199 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011127 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088025C070403
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: On 22 January 1982, the applicant's commander at the Retraining Brigade submitted a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068466C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he began using heroin while in the military and "was immediately addicted to this drug." On 30 January 2002 the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090062C070212
The applicant was released from active duty under honorable conditions (General), on 23 July 1982, in the rank and pay grade, Private, E-1, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. This program applied to all Active Army personnel who had completed at least 6 months, but no more than 36 months of continuous active duty on their first enlistment in the Army, at the time the member's immediate commander formally recommended...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072759C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to either an honorable or medical discharge. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he should have been discharged by reason of medical disability because he was addicted to drugs and alcohol and was never offered any help for his illness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004137C070205
Thomas Ray | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The request indicated that the applicant alleged that he had served in the Army from 1980 to 1982 and that he had received a general discharge. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012456
Counsel states: a. The applicant remained assigned to this unit until he was reassigned to the Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley, KS, on 18 September 1981. c. Paragraph 4 of the ROP shows the results of the summary court-martial (SCM) the applicant received on 16 September 1981. Two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) show the applicant was placed in confinement on 16 September 1981, was present for duty on 9 October 1981, and the form was sent to the Commander, 5th Unit, Retraining Brigade.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086426C070212
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant has not presented and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081293C070215
On 17 January 1983, the appropriate authority waived further rehabilitative requirements and directed that the applicant be separated with a UOTHC discharge. He had completed 1 year, 8 months and 12 days of active military service. 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 | CY2010 | 20100010104
On 24 August 1981, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for misconduct - frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. On 1 September 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087433C070212
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant has not presented and...