| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That his current discharge does not enable him to work in the field of expertise that he was trained for in the Army. He also states that he has seven children and needs to get a better job. In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG) on 10 January 1970, as a unit supply specialist. He was ordered to active duty for training (ADT) on 23 April 1970, and was released from ADT on 20 August 1970, and returned to control of the TXARNG. He was honorably discharged from the TXARNG on 18 July 1974.
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 March 1975, and continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 15 March 1978, in order to reenlist. He reenlisted on 16 March 1978. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 effective 24 November 1983.
Between February 1985 and July 1985, the applicant received three counseling statements and four letters pertaining to his indebtedness and spousal support.
On 30 July 1985, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. He based his recommendation on the applicant’s chronic financial indebtedness and for being absent from his appointed place of duty.
On 1 August 1985, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct – pattern of misconduct.
The applicant consulted with counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, representation by counsel, and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. He stated that he did not choose to oppose the recommendation of his commander. He felt that he was unable to get a handle on his financial situation while serving in the Army and requested that his case be handled expeditiously and that he be discharged immediately.
The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 5 August 1985, and was found qualified for separation. The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on the same day, which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.
On 22 August 1985, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 30 August 1985. He had a total of 10 years, 9 months, and 25 days of creditable service.
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on
4 September 1989, for an upgrade of his discharge. The ADRB determined that
his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request on 4 June 1992.
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, patterns of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. 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 Board notes the applicant’s contention; however, he was counseled by his chain of command pertaining to his chronic indebtedness and was aware of the consequences of his pattern of misconduct, which would result in discharge.
2. While the Board is empathetic, it does not upgrade discharges in order to obtain employment opportunities. The applicant was aware of the consequences of an under other than honorable conditions discharge and his pattern of misconduct is not sufficiently mitigated to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
3. 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.
4. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were
appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
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
___iw___ ___gw___ ___rw___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063620 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020312 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19850830 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, C, 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | AR20140010352
He requested consideration of his case by a board of officers and asked to personally appear before the board. The separation authority may issue an honorable discharge or general discharge if warranted by the overall record of service; however, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for members separated under these provisions of the regulation. The applicant's request that his discharge be upgraded was carefully considered, but there was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000503C070205
On 29 November 1993, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct – due to his conviction by civil authorities. Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 10 December 1993, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct – conviction by civil authorities. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002379
On 10 December 1993, the applicant was separated from the service, in pay grade E-3, after completing 2 years, 11 months, and 16 days of creditable active service with 35 days of lost time due to civil confinement. 12 The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 18 June 1998 requesting that his discharge be upgraded to honorable based on the same issues he has asserted to this Board. However, there is no evidence and the applicant has not provided evidence that shows...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001705C070205
The applicant requests that his Reenlistment (RE) Code be changed to a more favorable code that will allow him to enlist in the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG), that his bar to reenlistment be removed and that his report of separation (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect that he qualified as an expert with the M16 rifle. There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever raised the issue of a breech of his enlistment contract, other than the initial pay...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011914
After the presentation of evidence and witnesses, the Board of Officers found that the preponderance of evidence indicated a pattern of misconduct and recommended that the applicant be separated and that he be issued a discharge under honorable conditions. On 16 May 1985, the acting commanding general waived the rehabilitation requirements, approved the separation recommendation of the Board of Officers, and directed that the applicant be separated from the U.S. Army under the provisions of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050018162C070206
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 10 December 1993, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct – conviction by civil authorities. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 18 June 1998 requesting that his discharge be upgraded to honorable based on the same issues he has asserted to this Board. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130022139
On 17 January 1970, the applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) by reason of unfitness. The applicant provides: a. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of service is commensurate with his overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003470
The applicant requests: a. the separation authority of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c be voided from his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 1 March 1999 based on dismissal of his court case by a civilian judge; b. his general under honorable conditions discharge be changed to a medical discharge; and c. promotion from staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 to sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7. His...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002669
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 2 September 1982 with an under honorable conditions character of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-33b(3), by reason of misconduct an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts. His records show he was counseled due to his failure to pay his just debts.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012939
On 3 August 1987, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (commission of a serious offense). On 10 July 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an honorable discharge. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general, under honorable conditions or an...