| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Member | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because he served over 180 consecutive days of active service and is being denied Veterans Administration (VA) benefits.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 18 October 1990 for a period of 4 years and training as an equipment records and parts specialist. He completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 26 April 1991.
On 30 December 1991 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failure to secure his rifle. His punishment consisted of restriction and extra duty.
On 26 March 1992. he was convicted by a summary court-martial of pushing and kicking a commissioned officer. He was sentenced to a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.
On 20 April 1992, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct based on commission of a serious offense. After being advised of his rights and consulting with counsel, the applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 21 April 1992 and directed that the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 8 May 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct based on commission of a serious offense. He had served 1 year, 6 months and 21 days of total active service.
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 2 April 2001. The ADRB found that the applicant had been properly discharged and that his service was properly characterized. The ADRB voted unanimously to deny his request.
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. 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. Although a general discharge is authorized, 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. 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 applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded so that he may obtain VA benefits has been noted by the Board. While the Board does not have any jurisdiction over benefits administered by the VA, it does not find that his contention or his undistinguished record of service is sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief by upgrading his discharge.
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
__gw____ ___inw __ ___fe ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058489 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/08/09 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1992/05/08 |
| 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 | CY2012 | 20120010705
On 5 August 1992, the applicant was again personally informed by his battalion commander of the requirement to execute a waiver statement within 7 days. By regulation, when the new separation action was initiated, the applicant had 7 days to acknowledge, respond, and exercise his rights. It stated that individuals would be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge prior to discharge or release from active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000908
The following members, a quorum, were present: The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. It appears that the applicant's overall record was taken into consideration by the separation authority based on his having received a general discharge, instead of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, which...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006338C070208
Records contain a memorandum, dated 30 July 1991, from United States Army Trial Defense Service, wherein the applicant's legal counsel raised the issue that he should be separated by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), rather then be administratively separated under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050013442C070206
Edward Montgomery | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, that the bar to reenlistment be removed from his records, that he be paid monetary benefits as a result of the upgrade of his discharge and given authority to use his Montgomery G.I. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 60 days) and extra duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073627C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his records be corrected to show he was separated for medical disability. A VA Rating Decision dated 30 January 2002 again denied the applicant’s claim for service connection for a bilateral knee condition and right shoulder injury. A Chronological Record of Medical Care dated 15 July 1991, presumably when the applicant was on active duty, indicated the applicant “banged up” his shoulders.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084706C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 16 December 1994 requesting that his discharge be upgraded because he was unjustly discharged for the convenience of the government and was being denied the benefits that he had earned. The evidence of record clearly indicates that he was discharged for his own misconduct and his record of service is not sufficiently...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016181
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002000
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states he found various discrepancies and inaccurate facts and issues in the denial letter (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings) and points out the following: * an incorrect unit was cited * he had a sick slip for quarters, but his chain of command refused to correct the record to show he was not AWOL * he did not receive an assignment he requested * his company commander knew he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019434
He further acknowledged that if he received a discharge certificate/character of service which was less than honorable, he may make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged on 10 June 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Additionally, paragraph 14-3...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011211
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 8 November 1991, the unit commander notified the applicant that he intended to initiate separation action on him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), by reason of misconduct. The board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service due to misconduct commission of a serious offense and that he...