| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Eric N. Andersen | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was unaware of the discharge he received because he was intoxicated on the day of his discharge and did not read his separation document (DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 29 January 1979 for a period of 3 years, training as an infantry indirect fire crewman and assignment to the 1st Infantry Division. He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Riley, Kansas on 11 May 1979.
On 16 November 1979, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for possession of marijuana. His punishment consisted of correctional custody for 7 days and a forfeiture of pay.
On 12 February 1980, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 17 December to 27 December 1979. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 30 days of correctional custody (suspended until 10 May 1980).
On 10 June 1980, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty and disobeying a lawful order from his first sergeant. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
The actual facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative separation are not present in the available records. However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation signed by the applicant which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 21 August 1980, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct based on frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. He had served 1 year, 6 months, and 13 days of total active service and had 10 days of lost time due to AWOL.
There is no evidence in the available records to show that 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.
There is evidence in the available records to show that in 1991 and 1997, while incarcerated in correctional institutions in Tennessee, he requested copies of his military records from the National Personnel Records Center.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 established the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for various types of misconduct that included frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. It provided that action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.
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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.
3. The Board finds, after reviewing the evidence submitted by the applicant and the available evidence of record, that there are no mitigating circumstances that warrant an upgrade of his discharge when his entire record of otherwise undistinguished service is taken into consideration.
4. 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.
5. 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 ___ ___teo __ ___ena__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058291 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/09/27 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1980/08/21 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | MISCONDUCT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 626 | 144.6000/A60.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090022C070212
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. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. 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 | CY2004 | 2004099943C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Even if he had not been recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, there appears to have been no basis for a medical discharge. Evidence of record shows the same SSN was used at the time of the applicant's enlistment and his discharge from the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066027C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The available records do not contain any evidence that indicates he was ever coerced and he has provided no evidence to the contrary. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001066027SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED20020521TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19800627DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200 DISCHARGE REASONA60.00BOARD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052333C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 20 April 1979, the applicant was notified that a board of officers would convene on 2 May 1979 to determine whether he should be discharged due to misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074133C070403
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 was told that he was being separated from the service under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, with an honorable discharge. However, the available evidence of record clearly states that he was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for separation under chapter 14 for misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000151
The available evidence does not 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. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004042C070205
He was sentenced to perform 45 days of extra duty, to be restricted for 45 days, and to forfeit $311 pay per month for 1 month. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Evidence of record shows the applicant had three nonjudicial punishments, one summary court-martial conviction, and one special court-martial conviction prior to being sent to the Retraining Brigade.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071844C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02901-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. paygrade E-2, and correctional On 5 October 1979, while in a UA status, The punishment imposed was a $115 The punishment imposed was a $400 Your record further...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077837C070215
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 April 2003 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002077837 The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002077837SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20030401TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19811015DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, Chap 14DISCHARGE REASONA60.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES...