| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge be upgraded and he be reinstated in the Army.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his separation paperwork was inaccurate and false.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 6 July 1998, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 4 years. At the time of this enlistment, he had already served for over a year in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) and had completed basic training. Subsequent to his enlistment in the RA, he attended advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 75B (Administrative Specialist).
The applicant’s service record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, it does contain a disciplinary history that 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.
On 27 March 2000, the applicant accepted NJP for five separate specifications of wrongfully failing to go to his appointed place of duty and his punishment for these offenses was 7 days of extra duty.
On 12 September 2000, the applicant accepted NJP for two specifications of wrongfully failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for assaulting another soldier by pushing him to the floor and physically keeping him from leaving the room. His punishment for these offenses included a reduction to the rank of private/E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of $234.00, and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.
On 19 October 2000, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that separation action for a pattern of misconduct was being initiated against him based on the misconduct documented in the two NJPs he had accepted and his failure to respond positively to another chance he was provided to prove himself as a soldier. The applicant was also advised that his unit commander was recommending that he receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
On 6 November 2000, the applicant consulted legal counsel and after being advised of the contemplated separation action and its effects, he completed his election of rights, in which, he elected to represented by counsel. The applicant also submitted a statement in his own behalf, in which, he requested he be given another chance to show he learned from his mistakes and if discharged that he be given an honorable discharge.
On 17 November 2000, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Accordingly, on 9 January 2001, the applicant was discharged after completing a total of 2 years, 8 months, and 4 days of active military service.
On 13 July 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge after determining that both the characterization of the applicant’s service and the reason for his discharge were both proper and equitable.
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 and it states, in pertinent part, that action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable or general discharge may be granted.
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 noted the applicant’s contention that his separation packet contained false information and characterizations but finds this claim lacks merit.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the separation proceedings were conducted in accordance with applicable law and regulations and that the character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall record of service.
3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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.
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
__FNE __ __SLP _ __DPH __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059576 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/07/17 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 2001/01/09 |
| 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 | CY2009 | 20090002020
This form further confirms he completed a total of 2 years, 9 months, and 18 days of creditable active military service. The "JKK" SPD code is the correct code for Soldiers separated under chapter 14-12(c) of AR 635-200 by reason of misconduct. The evidence of records shows the applicant was 18 years of age at the time of his enlistment and 20 years of age at the time of his offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003555
During this confrontation, the applicant told COL Cxx that he could not counsel her because he was not in her chain of command. However, her record contains a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that shows she was discharged on 27 February 2007, under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraph 4-2b, by reason of unacceptable behavior, and she received an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050010899
Scott W. Faught | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 1 October 2003, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct and cited the applicant's two Article 15s and patterns of lesser misconduct. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty individuals will be assigned RE codes...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063192C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. His commander denied his request. On 28 November 2000, the applicant was counseled by his commander after the applicant went to Colorado from 22 – 27 November 2000 after he was ordered not to, for failing to show up for duty during the same time period, and driving on post on 22 November 2000 after he was notified that his post driving privileges were revoked.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091324C070212
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 9 April 2003. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned reentry codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The applicant has failed to show, through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record, that his separation which resulted in his receiving an RE Code of RE "4" was in error or unjust.
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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074372C070403
Further, other than the applicant’s assertion that this action was based solely on the allegation that he had made a false official statement in his NJP appeal, there is not information on file that confirms the specific reason(s) why the imposing commander elected to vacate the suspended reduction. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s),...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009334C080213
On 3 September 2000, the applicants commander initiated separation proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for serious misconduct. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) states that SPD JKK is used for an involuntary discharge when the reason for discharge is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2). The evidence of record shows that he was in fact recommended for discharge for both drug use and larceny.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089940C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE : The IO finally found that the evidence did not show that the applicant was derelict in the performance of her duties.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083224C070215
The applicant's OMPF contains a letter, dated 14 March 2001, from the Office of the Commanding Officer. Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the Official Military Personnel File it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by : the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board, Army appeals board, Chief of...