| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the narrative reason for his discharge be changed from misconduct to administrative.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that a change to the reason for his discharge is supported by documents in his military service record.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 3 June 1986, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman) and was assigned to the 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Myer, Virginia.
The applicant’s record shows that during his active duty tenure the highest rank he attained was specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4) and that he earned the following awards: Army Service Ribbon; Army Achievement Medal; National Defense Service Medal; and Army Good Conduct Medal. There are no acts of valor documented in his record.
The applicant’s disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on two separate occasions. The first on 7 February 1990, for being absent without leave (AWOL) for 2 days and the second on
5 February 1992, for being disrespectful in deportment toward a superior noncommissioned officer (NCO) and for altering an official statement with the intent to deceive.
On 23 March 1992, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that he intended to initiate separation action against him, under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct-commission of a serious offense and to recommend he receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
The applicant was advised of his rights and consulted legal counsel. After being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action against him he submitted a statement in his own behalf.
On 19 May 1992, the appropriate separation authority after reviewing the separation packet to include the applicant’s statement, directed he be separated with a GD. Accordingly, on 22 May 1992, the applicant was discharged after completing a total of 3 years, 11 months, 20 days of creditable active military service and having accrued 2 days of time lost due to AWOL.
On 26 January 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), based on the applicant’s overall record of service, voted to upgrade his characterization of service to fully honorable. However, the ADRB concluded that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.
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, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that his overall record of service supports a change to the narrative reason for his discharge but finds this claim lacks merit. While the Board concurs with the upgrade action taken by the ADRB, it finds insufficient evidence to support changing the reason for discharge.
2. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. In the opinion of the Board, his overall record of service was appropriately recognized with the honorable discharge upgrade granted by the ADRB. Lacking independent evidence to the contrary, the Board is convinced that the narrative reason for his discharge was proper and equitable and that there is no basis for changing it at this time.
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
__JNS___ __LE ___ __REB___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059265 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/09/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19925/05/22 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056650C070420
Evidence of record also shows that the ADRB reviewed the applicant’s case on 1 August 1997 and determined that his narrative reason for separation was proper and equitable. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the narrative reason for separation issued to him was in error or unjust. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001056650SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20010830TYPE OF DISCHARGE(GD)DATE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062567C070421
In support of his application, he submits an undated letter of explanation; a Certificate of Training for the Air Assault School, dated 18 September 1991; a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 19 September 1991; an undated letter of explanation, provided subsequent to his application, wherein he requests that his DD Form 214 be corrected to show that he completed the International Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol School and that he was qualified for the Expert Marksmanship Qualification...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076069C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He enlisted in the pay grade of E-4 on 13 August 1991, for a period of 3 years, training as a cargo handler and enrollment in the Army College Fund. However, the applicant was not truthful when he came into the Army in regards to his drug use activities and did not succeed in the rehabilitation program while in the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067046C070402
The applicant requests, in effect, that a review of the circumstances surrounding his trial by court-martial be conducted by the Board, that his records be corrected to show that he was advanced to the pay grade of E-4, and that he was awarded the Overseas Service Ribbon (OSR), the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM), the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), the Southwest Asia Service Medal (SWASM) with three bronze service stars, the Kuwait Liberation Medal-Kuwait (KLM), and the Marksman and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000258
The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 November 1992. On 10 August 2006, the ADRB reviewed the applicants request for reconsideration and granted him relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with a pattern of misconduct and was notified of the initiation of separation action.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068270C070402
Chapter 14, establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Army regulations state that a soldier is in an entry level status if the soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(c), for misconduct – commission of a serious offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008084C071029
The applicant’s discharge packet is not available. The applicant’s ADRB packet shows the applicant’s commander notified the applicant on 8 January 2001 of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058489C070421
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. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 2 April 2001.
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 | CY2002 | 2002075784C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.