| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he never received any punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), received three awards of the Good Conduct Medal, consistently rated at the top of his career field, and served honorably.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
At the time of the incident that led to his separation, the applicant was serving on active duty as recruiter in the pay grade of E-6. On 12 March 1993, an investigation was completed concerning allegations that the applicant, a married man, had an unauthorized relationship with a female member of the Air Force Delayed Entry Program (DEP) and violated State laws by purchasing and consuming alcoholic beverages with said female who was under the legal drinking age.
The investigation concluded that the applicant had knowingly initiated and entered into an unauthorized, romantic relationship with a female member of the Air Force DEP, purchased and consumed alcoholic beverages with said female who was under the legal drinking age, misused a government vehicle by using it to visit said female and using it to engage in sexual intercourse with said female, and disobeyed instructions from his station commander to stay away from said female. The investigating officer recommended that the applicant be relieved from recruiting duty, receive a General Officer Letter of Reprimand, and be reassigned as a track vehicle mechanic.
On 15 April 1993, his command recommended suspension of his security clearance based on the findings of the investigation and the recommendation that the applicant have charges preferred for sentence by a special court-martial. There is no evidence of record that court-martial charges were ever preferred.
On 3 May 1993, the battalion commander recommended the applicant be separated for the misconduct cited in the report of investigation. On 6 May 1993, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged the commander’s recommendation for separation for misconduct. The applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers based on his receiving a general discharge and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.
In his statement, the applicant requested to remain on active duty. He cited his past record of achievements, awards, and decorations. He apologized for the incident of misconduct and took responsibility for his actions. He requested the commander give him a second chance or grant him an honorable discharge.
On 30 July 1993, the separation authority, a major general, directed that the applicant be separated with a general discharge under honorable conditions. Effective 20 August 1993, the applicant was separated in the pay grade of E-6 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct. He had 9 years, 4 months, 17 days creditable service.
On 22 August 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), in a unanimous decision, voted to deny the applicant an upgrade of his general discharge. The ADRB determined that the nature of the applicant’s misconduct diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
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, conviction 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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
2. The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s prior honorable service; however, the seriousness of the misconduct, which could have led to trial by court-martial and a punitive discharge, negates his contention that he earned and deserved an honorable discharge.
3. 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.
4. 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
_gdp____ _wtm____ _rtd____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061559 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | YYYYMMDD |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19930820 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, PARA 14-12c |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A67.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01274
MD02-01274 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020903, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The factual basis for this recommendation was due to Applicant having received non-judicial punishment on two separate occasions for disobeying a lawful order and under age drinking, a psychiatrist has provided a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder which could deteriorate into...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05297-02
The GCMCA declined to act on Petitioner's specific complaint about the NJP since applicable directives state that such a disciplinary action is not a proper subject of an Article 138 complaint. OONOV02' to OlMAR15, as corrected by the (GCMCA), refers to the results of (NJP) where the charged deiekination that your Evaluation Report for the reporting period of;ense does not state an offense under the UCMJ. Paragraph 4 q. UCMJ Article 92(1)2 states that it is an offense to or beyond the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006426
Did the applicant sexually harass any Soldier during the 4 September 2012 and 11 October 2012 incidents in question? The applicant did not sexually harass any Soldier during the 4 September 2012 and 11 October 2012 incidents in question. On 15 November 2012, MG S____ W. S____, Commanding General, 335th Signal Command (Theater) (Provisional), requested delegation of authority to dispose of the applicant's misconduct case wherein he stated an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008981
f. Cadet MT stated he had known the applicant for 4 years and had never known him to say or do anything of an inappropriate sexual nature to a subordinate female in the battalion. The board of officers found the applicant: * Received advanced educational assistance in the form of ROTC scholarship monies from the U.S. Government in the amount of $135,773.23 that continued to be a valid debt * By his own admittance, the applicant failed to complete the requirements of a valid ROTC cadet...
AF | DRB | CY2001 | FD01-00072
On 27 October 1994, three charges, with one specification He was charged each, were preferred against Airman with conspiracy, violation of a law ulation, and use of provoking words to a civilian, violations of Articles 81, 92, and 134, respectively. Amn-was Amn qJlKlJbwas ( 4 ) The-additional charge alleges that Amn -stole a checkbook charged as a charged with larceny because there is ample in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. Should you recommend a service characteriza- B. Disapprove the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017449
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests removal of the following documents from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF): * a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 24 July 2005, and the punishment overturned * a Memorandum of Reprimand (MOR), dated 16 June 2005 * a DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 15 April 2004 through 14 April 2005 [hereafter referred to as...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022015
On 4 January 1980, the PEB findings were reviewed and modified to show the accident was not in the line of duty and the accident and disability were due to the applicant's own intentional misconduct. b. LOD investigations are conducted essentially to arrive at a determination of whether misconduct or negligence was involved in the disease, injury, or death and, if so, to what degree. d. Appendix B, Rule 3 states: any injury, disease, or death that results in incapacitation because of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008358
On 12 May 2011, a board of officers convened and found the applicant: * received advanced educational assistance in the form of ROTC scholarship monies from the U.S. Government in the amount of $135,733.23 that continued to be a valid debt * by his own admittance, failed to complete the requirements of a valid ROTC cadet contract by making pervasive, unwanted sexual comments and advances towards subordinate females within the battalion * displayed moral turpitude through the use of obscene,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015992
The applicant states: * he questions the necessity of back-to-back investigations into the same allegations * the first investigation found proof that his former wife lied in her sworn statements * his former wife's later statements were viewed as credible despite the findings she previously lied * the second investigating officer (IO) based his findings on supposition and conjecture and not fact * his matters for consideration were never answered * the legal sufficiency review of the...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130012495
The record shows that on 19 October 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct (serious offense), specifically for: a. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations in effect at the time for a discharge under this paragraph is "misconduct, serious offense and the separation code is "JKQ." The records show the proper discharge and separation authority...