Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064106C070421
Original file (2001064106C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 18 June 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001064106

         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.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Ms. Nancy L. Amos Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Karol A. Kennedy Chairperson
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer Member
Mr. Allen L. Raub Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

        
         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
advisory opinion, if any)


APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES: The applicant makes no additional statement with his application but in a letter to his Congressman indicates he needs the correction to obtain educational benefits. As supporting evidence he provides his Regular Army enlistment contract; his April 1995 Army National Guard (ARNG) enlistment contract; his ARNG Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214; a diploma showing he completed the Medical Specialist Course in 1989; and an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the New Jersey ARNG showing he was transferred to the Retired Reserve on 1 January 1999.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

He initially enlisted in the New Jersey ARNG in December 1987. On 17 June 1998, he requested release from the ARNG and enlistment in the Regular Army. His unit commander recommended approval. On 2 September 1998, he enlisted in the Regular Army.

(An Honorable Discharge Certificate, NGB Form 55B, shows the applicant was discharged from the ARNG on 1 January 1999 and transferred to the Retired Reserve. His Report of Separation, NGB Form 22, shows he was discharged from the ARNG on 20 January 1999 for enlistment in a component of the Armed Forces.)

On 15 June 1999, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for three times failing to go to his appointed place of duty and making a false official statement with intent to deceive.

On 6 October 1999, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for four times failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 22 November 1999, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being disrespectful in language towards a superior noncommissioned officer and disobeying a lawful order to be at ease.

On 16 December 1999, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for disobeying a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer.

Around March 2000, the applicant’s commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for pattern of misconduct. The recommendation and the applicant’s acknowledgment of the separation action are not available. He apparently requested that his case be considered by an administrative separation board.

On 31 March 2000, the applicant’s commander prepared a performance statement. He stated the applicant had received four field grade and one company grade Article 15s since being on active duty. (One of the Article 15s is not available.) The applicant had been diagnosed with and given a treatment plan for ankylosing spondylitis but he failed to perform the stretching and exercise as laid out in his profiles and directions. He received negative counseling for failure to take his medications. He complained of side effects but failed to follow the guidance of qualified medical personnel or act under their advice. His appearance and hygiene were the subject of many negative counseling sessions. He often failed to be in the proper place of duty at the prescribed time.

On 12 July 2000, an administrative separation board was held. Witnesses for the Government testified, substantiating the commander’s statement. The applicant testified and refuted the testimony of the Government witnesses. No witnesses for the applicant testified. The board found that by a preponderance of the evidence he committed a pattern of misconduct and that his misconduct warranted separation. The board recommended the applicant be separated due to his misconduct with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 15 September 2000, the appropriate authority reviewed both the administrative separation packet and the medical evaluation board proceedings (not available) on the applicant and determined that the applicant’s medical condition was not a direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for separation. He also determined that there were no other circumstances that would warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation. He approved the recommendation for separation and directed the applicant receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 22 September 2000, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions, in pay grade of E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct. He had completed a total of 2 years, 5 months, and 20 days of creditable active service and a total of 10 years, 3 months, and 2 days of service for pay and had no 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, convictions 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.

On 16 May 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

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. 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 indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. Considering his numerous infractions of military discipline during his Regular Army enlistment, the characterization of his discharge as under other than honorable was and still is appropriate.

3. The Board notes that there are errors on the applicant’s NGB Form 55B and NGB Form 22 regarding his date of discharge and, on his NBG Form 55B, the component to which transferred.

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

__KAK__ __MHM__ __ALR__ DENY APPLICATION



                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records




INDEX

CASE ID AR2001064106
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 2002/06/18
TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE 2000/09/22
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200, ch 14
DISCHARGE REASON A64.00
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 110.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100025127

    Original file (AR20100025127.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary...

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070006164

    Original file (AR20070006164.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 06 Yrs, 06Mos, 03Days ????? The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8, Paragraph 8-26q, NGR 600-200, by reason of acts or patterns of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of "3." Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U....

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070006164aC071121

    This document indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-26q, NGR 600-200, by reason of acts or patterns of misconduct with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, with a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of "3". c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s available military records for the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents he submitted, the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004783

    Original file (20090004783.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He further requests removal of any record of a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) that was illegally submitted and administered and the removal of an Officer Evaluation Report (OER), dated 31 January 2000, from his official military personnel file (OMPF). 06-2051 against the State of New Jersey Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, National Guard of the United States: a. a sworn statement, dated 30 August 1999; b. a general...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019837

    Original file (20130019837.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show his retired rank and grade as staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6. His DD Form 214 shows he held the rank and pay grade of SSG/E-6 on the date of his separation and that he had been promoted to that grade on 30 July 1984. Army Regulation 135-180 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve - Qualifying Service for Retired Pay Non-regular Service) implements statutory authorities governing granting retired pay to Soldiers and former Reserve...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013357

    Original file (20100013357.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There are no orders in the applicant's OMPF showing exactly when he was reduced or the effective date of reduction. His NGB Form 22 with an effective date of 2 January 2000 shows his grade at the time of discharge as sergeant/pay grade E-5 with a date of rank of 22 September 1992.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060011659

    Original file (AR20060011659.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This document indicates that the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard of the state of New Jersey and as a Reserve of the Army under the provisions of Paragraph 8-27q, NGR 600-200, by reason of acts or patterns of misconduct, with a charactaerization of service of under other than honorable conditions, with a RE code of "3". The evidence of record shows on the applicant's DD Form 214 that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8, Paragraph 8-26q, NGR 600-200, by...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010150

    Original file (20110010150.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 1 March 2001, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense. The evidence of record shows the applicant demonstrated he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013378

    Original file (20080013378.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant’s military personnel records show he was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant/pay grade O-2 effective and with a DOR of 15 May 1995. d. NGB, Arlington, VA, memorandum, dated 7 December 2007, subject: Promotion as a Reserve Commissioned Officer of the Army, that shows the applicant was promoted in the Reserve of the Army for service in the ARNG of the United States effective and with a DOR of 7 December 2007. e. NGB, Washington, DC, Special Orders Number 307 AR, dated 7...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017209

    Original file (20080017209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He was then reassigned to Fort Carson, Colorado in August 1968. On 13 December 1968, the applicant's sentence was approved and ordered to be duly executed, but the execution of that portion of his sentence which adjudged confinement at hard labor was suspended effective 19 December 1968 until 2 June 1969, and appears to have been remitted without further action.