| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge, under honorable conditions upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he did not know he could lose his educational benefits. He would never have agreed to give up his educational benefits because he had already paid his money for it. He served his time without complaint. He was a proud member of Desert Storm. 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:
On 22 February 1989, the applicant enlisted in the Army.
On 24 February 1989, he authenticated a DD Form 2366 (Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (GI Bill)), which indicated, in pertinent part, that “I must receive an honorable discharge for service which established entitlement to the GI Bill of 1984.”
On 1 September 1990, he was advanced to pay grade E-4.
During the period 21 October 1990 to 20 April 1991, he served in Southwest Asia.
During the period July 1991 through July 1992, he was formally counseled on numerous occasions for violations ranging from his missing formations, apathy, negligence, failure to repair, absence without leave (AWOL), and for being missing from place of duty.
On 16 April 1992, a bar to reenlistment was approved based on his lack of demonstrated potential for future service. He indicated that he did not appeal the bar to reenlistment.
On 23 June 1992, he was administered nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform code of Military Justice for being AWOL for the period 2 through 9 June 1992. His punishment consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of $234 pay per month for one month, restriction for 14 days and extra duty for 14 days.
On 4 September 1992, 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 and of his rights.
On 9 September 1992, he acknowledged his commander’s notification. He waived consideration of and personal appearance before an administrative board. He indicated that statements in his own behalf would not be submitted and he waived consulting counsel.
The appropriate separation authority approved the discharge and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate (GDC).
On 29 September 1992, he was discharged under the above-cited regulation and issued a GDC. His separation document indicates he had 3 years, 7 months and 8 days of creditable service and 7 days of lost time.
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.
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’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. The evidence of record clearly shows the applicant was aware of and agreed to the conditions of a general discharge.
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 the preceding 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
_jhl____ _rwa____ __wtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063154 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020314 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020789
The applicant requests upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to an honorable discharge or a refund of his Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) payments. The record shows he had continuous honorable service from 9 September 1986 to 2 December 1991. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
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 | CY1995 | 9511922C070209
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 the deductions could not be refunded, suspended or stopped. The applicants contention that he was in the military for about 12 months before MGIB contributions were deducted from his pay is true. Reservists and Guardsmen not on extended active duty do not have MGIB contributions deducted from their pay.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008529
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his discharge document to show he contributed to the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP). Therefore, considering all the evidence and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for correction of Item 15a of his DD Form 214. While the Board does not dispute the fact that the applicant was told that his discharge document contained an error...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016737
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Paragraph 2-4 (Completing the DD Form 214) of the separation documents regulation, contains item-by-item instructions for completing the DD Form 214. However, the DD Form 214 in use at the time of the applicants separation from active duty is not designed to show an individuals contribution to the MGIB.
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 | 2001062858C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004981
The applicant states that his DD Form 214 does not show that he contributed to Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Educational Assistance Program. The DD Form 214 in use at the time of the applicants discharge from active duty is not designed to show an individuals contribution to the MGIB. In view of the foregoing, the applicants DD Form 214, Item 15a (Member Contributed to Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Educational Assistance Program) is properly marked No. Therefore, considering all the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009983
The applicants military service records contain a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), with an effective date of 14 January 1994. The evidence of record shows that, at the time of his enlistment, the applicant acknowledged that he understood that his basic pay would be reduced $100 per month for each of the first full 12 months of active duty, that the money cannot be refunded, that he must complete his Selected Reserve obligation for the entitlement to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070387C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant requests that his record be corrected to show that he executed a DD Form 5261-4-R (Student Loan Repayment Program Addendum) upon his enlistment in the Army Reserve in 1992, in order for the government to pay his student loans. Prior to his enlistment, on 24 September 1992, the applicant completed the forms described above that...