| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. June Hajjar | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Member | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he has had no misconduct in the last 3 years.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were unable to be located. Information herein was obtained from the record of his trial by court-martial and from reconstructed personnel records.
During the period 9 August 1992 through 12 March 1995, the applicant served in the Regular Army (RA) and was honorably separated in order to reenlist.
On 13 March 1995, the applicant reenlisted for 4 years in the RA.
On 6 January 1996, while serving in pay grade E-4, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for driving drunk and operating a vehicle without a driver’s license on 21 December 1996. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $437 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty. There was no appeal.
On 25 March 1997, a separation physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.
On 18 April 1997, in consonance with his plea, while serving in an undetermined pay grade, he was convicted by a summary court martial (SCM) of his failure to repair (FTR) on 25 January 1997; his AWOL during the period 26 through 28 January 1997; his AWOL during the period 2 through 6 February 1997; his FTR on 28 February 1997; and, for being drunk and disorderly on 7 April 1997. His sentence included confinement for 15 days and a forfeiture of $450 pay.
On 1 May 1997, the unit commander notified the applicant of the initiation of a separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for serious misconduct and he was advised of his rights. The applicant acknowledged the commander’s notification and waived consulting counsel.
On 2 May 1997, a Report of Mental Status Evaluation indicates the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings; was mentally responsible; met the retention requirements of Chapter 3, AR 40-501; and that there was no evidence of a mental disease or defect of psychiatric significance or of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through medical channels. The applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by his commander.
On 5 May 1997, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed he receive a general discharge, under honorable conditions.
On 20 May 1997, in consonance with his plea, while serving in an undetermined pay grade, he was convicted by a SCM of being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 9 through 10 May 1997. His sentence consisted of confinement for 30 days and a forfeiture of $600 pay.
On 13 June 1997, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under Army Regulation 635-200. His separation document indicates he had 4 years, 9 months and 25 days total creditable service and 10 days of lost time.
On 19 October 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 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.
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 is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable. His contention of no further misconduct in the last 3 years does not sufficiently support his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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. 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.
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
_kak____ _rwa____ _jh_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063715 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020205 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020340
On 5 January 1981, the applicants company commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separation), chapter 14, for misconduct, frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. He provided no evidence or argument to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020385
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 May 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110020385 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. His total active service and lost time are not shown on his DD Form 214; however, given his date of entry on active duty which was 30 April 1996 and his date of discharge which was 14 September 1998, it does not appear he completed the required...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008362
The applicant states that he was only 17 years old at the time of his enlistment and that he was 19 years old at the time of his discharge. The applicant submits two Letters of Commendation dated 14 May 1973. Considering the nature of his court-martial offenses and his overall record of service, it does not appear that his undesirable discharge is too severe.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076027C070215
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071187C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. His DD Form 214 indicates that he had 3 years and 28 days of creditable service and 655 days of lost time. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061990C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to either a general or honorable discharge. The Board notes that in spite of the emotional problems he experienced while an adolescent, he successfully completed training, was promoted to pay grade E-4, recognized by his commander as an outstanding soldier, and awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130011823
Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 9 September 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of, under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was separated on 17 September 2011, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(1), for misconduct (AWOL), with an, under other than honorable conditions discharge,...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130011951
Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 9 September 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was separated on 17 September 2011, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(1), for misconduct (AWOL), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge, an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008245
The applicant was sentenced to forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 10 months, and to be discharged from the Army with a BCD. In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to change a discharge due to matters which should have been raised in the appellate process, rather it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130008044
The applicant requests his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 November 1996, for a period of 3 years. The service record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority.