| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged. In addition, on 10 September 2001, he submitted a request for reimbursement of the money he put into the GI Bill, approximately $1,200, so that he might attend college.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he feels his discharge should be changed to honorable.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 24 February 1995, the applicant enlisted in the Army.
During the period 21 November 1995 to 25 August 1996, the applicant was formally counseled for referral to the alcohol and drug program; larceny; disobeying a lawful order; operating a vehicle while drunk; underage drinking; and revocation of privately owned vehicle privileges.
On 22 March 1996, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform code of Military Justice for stealing a pre-paid phone card valued at $48.99 from the Army and Air Force Exchange System on 13 January 1996. His punishment included a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay (suspended), restriction and extra duty.
On 13 July 1996, the applicant accepted NJP for wrongfully using marijuana on 20 May 1996. His punishment included a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.
On 4 September 1996, a Mental Status Evaluation cleared him for separation.
On 13 September 1996, the unit commander notified the applicant of the initiation of a separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct, based on his patterns of misconduct (NJP’s and formal counseling statements) and he was advised of his rights.
On 16 September 1996, the applicant, after consulting with legal counsel, acknowledged notification of his commander’s intent, accepted counsel and elected to not make a statement in his own behalf.
On 24 September 1996, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed he receive a general discharge, under honorable conditions.
On 10 October 1996, he was discharged under the above-cited regulation. His separation document indicates he had 1 year, 7 months and 17 days of creditable service. It also shows he contributed to the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program.
On 31 August 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade of his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. A specific category was patterns of misconduct. A general discharge was normally appropriate for a member who was discharged for patterns of misconduct.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
Chapter 30, Title 38 of the US Code established eligibility requirement for participation in the Veterans' Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (New GI Bill). It provided that individuals who entered an initial period of active duty on or after 1 July 1985 would be automatically enrolled in the program unless they opted to disenroll within a specific time frame established by the individual services. Once enrolled in the New GI Bill the individual's basic pay was reduced $100.00 per month for each of the first full 12 months of active duty and could not be refunded, suspended or stopped. An honorable discharge is required for receipt of entitlements, which amounted to $300.00 per month for 36 months, for individuals who completed at least 3 years of active duty.
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 has submitted insufficient evidence to warrant an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. His discharge was clearly caused by his misconduct.
4. Based on the applicant’s length of service and characterization of service, he is not entitled to reimbursement of the New GI Bill payments.
5. 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.
6. 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
_inw____ __dph____ _hof____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062858 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010115 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073757C070403
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show that he was separated in pay grade E-4, that he contributed to the GI Bill and that he received the Air Assault Badge (AAB). Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records), the regulation governing this Board, shows that it is the applicant’s burden of showing error or injustice. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the individual concerned was awarded...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054011C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That upon enlisting in the Army in 1995, she enrolled in the MGIB. However, her records indicate that prior to her entry on active duty she acknowledged on the appropriate enlistment document that she was not eligible for the MGIB.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063352C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 7 June 1995, his commander advised him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, based on his pattern of misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063154C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He indicates that, “now, at this time when we need to pull together and help one another, please grant me the right to have my discharge turn[ed] into honorable and my educational benefits restored or, if not, I would like to request my money back that was taken from my check for Educational Purposes.” EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03098361C070212
Although the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) from her enlisted active duty service was available to the Board, only her Cadet Record Brief was available from her time as an ROTC cadet. The statement of support, submitted by the PMS at the University of Oklahoma stated that the applicant went through an extreme personal hardship while contracted as an Army ROTC scholarship cadet, and that following the death of her first brother in 1995 she “drove to Texas every weekend...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017509
The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a DD Form 214, with an effective date of 31 December 2003, that shows he was honorably retired from active duty after completing a total of 20 years and 19 days active service. The evidence of record shows that the applicant enrolled in the New GI Bill (i.e., the MGIB) on 3 March 1997. The DD Form 214 in use at the time of the applicants retirement from active duty is not designed to show an individuals contribution to the MGIB.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000948
The applicant requests: * adding his U.S. Navy (USN) DD form 2366 (Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984 (MGIB)) to his Army records * reimbursement of $1,200 deducted from his pay due to enrollment in the MGIB upon enlistment in the Army 2. The applicant's records contain a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that show she served in the USN from 12 December 2006 through 1 June 2009. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075211C070403
The applicant states, in effect, that he is being unjustly denied the opportunity to convert his enrollment in the VEAP to the MGIB, a benefit that he would have been afforded had he not been seriously injured in the line of duty and subsequently placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) during the time prescribed as the eligibility window. Public Law 106-419 (Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 2000) authorizes participants in the VEAP who have continuously...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069260C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The specific reason for the Article 15 is not in the file but was related to violating suspended driving privileges. On 14 March 1997, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to separate the applicant for a pattern of misconduct under paragraph 14-12b, Army Regulation 635-200.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004201C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The separation authority approved the discharge recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge. Once enrolled in the New GI Bill the individual's basic pay was reduced $100.00 per month for each of the first full 12 months of active duty and could not be refunded, suspended or stopped.