| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he participated in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) and needs his discharge upgraded in order to receive veterans education benefits.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 15 April 1987, he entered the Army for 3 years. He was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 16S (Man Portable Air Defense). During his tenure on active duty he was awarded the Humanitarian Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, and the highest rank he attained was private first class/E-3.
The applicant’s disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions. The first on 13 July 1988 for failure to obey a lawful order and the second on 18 May 1989 for the wrongful use of marijuana. His punishment for the second NJP action included a reduction in rank to private/E-1. Additionally, he was formally counseled on three separate occasions for failure to report to his prescribed place of duty.
On 16 August 1989, the applicant was notified by his commander that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of chapter 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200, for the commission of a serious offense based on his illegal drug use. The applicant’s inability or unwillingness to meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army was further cited by the commander as a basis for taking the action. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, consulted counsel, and completed his election of rights.
On 29 August 1989, the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant receive a GD. On 15 September 1989, the applicant was discharged accordingly after having completed a total of 2 years, 5 months, and 1 day of active military service. The applicant’s separation document (DD Form 214) confirms in Item 28 (Narrative Reason For Discharge) that the reason for his separation was “Misconduct-Abuse of Illegal Drugs”.
On 3 February 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) changed the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge to “Misconduct” under current regulatory standards but concluded that his discharge was proper and equitable at the time it was issued. The ADRB further determined an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable was not warranted.
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.
Title 38, United States Code, chapter 30, section 1411(b) provides the legal authority for granting education benefits under the provisions of the MGIB. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers the program and has established the following eligibility criteria for solders separated prior to their normal expiration of term of service (ETS): must be released by reason of hardship, medical disability, or convenience of the government; must have served at least 20 months of a 2 year enlistment and 30 months of a 3 or more year enlistment; and service must be characterized fully honorable.
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 that the ADRB voted to change the narrative reason for the applicant’s separation to simply “Misconduct” based on current regulatory standards but voted to deny an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable based on his overall record of service and the Board concurs with these findings.
2. The evidence of records shows the applicant had an extensive disciplinary history prior to committing the offense which led to his discharge. Further, the Board concludes that by violating the Army’s drug policies he clearly diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. Thus, the Board concludes his GD was appropriate based on his record of service.
3. The Board notes the applicant’s desire to receive education benefits but it finds this reason is not sufficient to warrant upgrading his discharge. The applicant’s drug offense coupled with his prior disciplinary history clearly diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. Thus, the Board finds an upgrade his discharge is not warranted at this time.
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__ __MHM__ __BJE __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001060261 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/10/18 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19890915 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 34.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999025612
A-2: Counsel Issues: NONE B-l: Other Documents: NONE PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW (CONTINUED) Accordingly, the Board found that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable at the time of the applicant’s discharge, and concluded that relief beyond that provided in response to issues (8) and (9) above was not warranted. ( X ) Change the reason and authority for discharge to Misconduct under Paragraph 14-12(c), AR 635-200.SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority:THOMAS J....
ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999025035
A-2: Counsel Issues: NONE B-l: Other Documents: NONE PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW (CONTINUED) The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.3. AR Number: 1999025035 INDEX NUMBERS: A9217 Date of Review: 990428 A9221 Character of Service: GD A0100 Date of Discharge: 890531 Authority: AR 635-200 C14 Reason: A6770 Results of Board Action/ Vote/Affirmation: NC 5-0 A PART IX - VOTING RECORDName...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050013792
The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 30 May 1987. On 9 October 1990, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the ASB, and directed the applicant be separated with a GD under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200. The separation authority did recognize the applicant's long record of service by granting a GD, rather than the under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge that is...
ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999027851
The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.3. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. ADRIANCE Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority:THOMAS J. ALLEN Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board AR Number: 1999027851...
ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | AR1999024586
The Board determined the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable at the time of his discharge; however, regulations currently in effect list the reason for the applicant’s discharge as misconduct. ( X ) Change the reason and authority for discharge to Misconduct under Chapter 14, AR 635-200.SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority:THOMAS J. ALLEN Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C...
ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | AR1999024782
The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.3. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. ADRIANCE Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority:THOMAS J. ALLEN Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board AR Number: 1999024782...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070314C070402
On 28 May 1991, the applicant was notified that a board of officers would convene on 18 June 1991 to determine whether he should be separated from the AGR program and released from active duty for misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 due to being AWOL and use of an illegal drug. Army policy states that a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.The separation code "JKQ"...
ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999026066
The evidence of record shows that on 14 June 1989, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter l4, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—abuse of illegal drugs, with a recommendation for an under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) discharge. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. ADRIANCE Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A -...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004137C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 17 October 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that he receive a GD. On 25 October 1985, the applicant was separated accordingly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007347C070208
There is no medical evidence on file that indicates the applicant suffered from a physically disqualifying condition that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was physically and mentally qualified for retention/separation, as determined by competent medical authority at the time of his separation. The Army must find unfitness for duty at the time of separation before a member may be medically retired or separated.