| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that there was no reason to administratively discharge him from the Army or to give him a general discharge. He goes on to state that he was discharged for misconduct because he was arrested for disorderly conduct during a fight with his wife. However, no charges were filed or action taken by the police. He further states that he accepted the discharge thinking that he would receive all of his benefits; however, he is currently using his G.I. Bill education benefits and has found that he receives a lesser amount than he would if he had an honorable discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 28 August 1991 for a period of 2 years. He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Hood, Texas for duty as a chemical operations specialist. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 28 February 1993 and reenlisted on 8 November 1993 for a period of 2 years.
On 6 July 1994, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct. He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant had disobeyed a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer, that he had repeatedly failed to pay his just debts and had been arrested for aggravated assault. He also indicated that nonjudicial punishment had been imposed against him for being drunk and disorderly. After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 12 July 1994, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 1 August 1994, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct. He had served 2 years, 11 months and 4 days of total active service.
He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge and contended at that time that his discharge was racially based and that there was insufficient basis to discharge him. The ADRB determined that his discharge and the reasons therefore were proper and unanimously denied his request on 15 November 1996.
He again applied to the ADRB on 3 May 2001 and requested a personal appearance before the ADRB Travel Panel. He was granted a personal appearance before the ADRB Travel Panel in New York on 17 July 2001 and failed to appear. The ADRB closed his case without further action and advised him to apply to this Board.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct. Specific categories include minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
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. 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.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
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
__inw ___ ___rjw __ ___gjw __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063153 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/03/12 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1994/08/01 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, ch14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 626 | 144.6000/A60.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050010216
He was discharged with a general discharge after completing 3 years and 8 months of a 4-year enlistment. He understood that if he received a general discharge certificate, he could make an application to the ADRB or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for upgrading [of his discharge]. The applicant was a Soldier with over three and one-half years of service, who departed AWOL in December 1993 for 12 days, who had received an Article 15 just the month previously, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014545
On or about 13 December 1993, the applicant's commander informed him she was initiating action to separate him for a pattern of misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14-12b. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge to an HD. __________X______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063743C070421
On 14 January 1994 the applicant’s commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for being AWOL for 28 days. On 19 January 1994 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged. However, that board again, in an unanimous opinion, denied the applicant’s request to change his discharge (Tab D), stating that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029886
He goes on to state that at the time he was 22 years of age and the incident for which he was charged occurred in 1986 when he was 14 years of age. On 1 October 1997, after reviewing all of the available evidence in his case, the ADRB determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable under the circumstances and voted unanimously to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084706C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 16 December 1994 requesting that his discharge be upgraded because he was unjustly discharged for the convenience of the government and was being denied the benefits that he had earned. The evidence of record clearly indicates that he was discharged for his own misconduct and his record of service is not sufficiently...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076077C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 15 December 1993, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. He contended that his discharge was inequitable because the incidents that served as the basis for his discharge were minor and did not warrant his discharge, and especially nothing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066268C070421
The Board considered the following evidence: Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101448C070208
On 4 August 1997, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions of paragraph 14- 12b (Patterns of Misconduct) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations). On 14 August 1997, the Commander of the 10th Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division directed that the applicant be discharged from the United States Army under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200, for patterns of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050016766C070206
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 exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3-year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079155C070215
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel...