| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he is unable to access the money he contributed to the Army for college because of this discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 8 September 1987 for a period of 2 years. He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was transferred to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for duty as a cannon fire direction specialist. On 8 March 1989, the applicant reenlisted for a period of 4 years. He served as an intelligence analyst in Korea for almost 16 months and was promoted to E-5 on 1 December 1990.
Between 24 July 1991 and 10 December 1991, the applicant was counseled on four occasions for missing formations, barracks and wall locker violations and security violations.
On 31 August 1991, the applicant was cited for a traffic violation by civil authorities.
On 24 October 1991, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failing to obey a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer.
On 29 October 1991, while in Korea, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for falsifying an official record. His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
In December 1991, the applicant’s command was notified of his failure to pay two debts (automobile loan and telephone bill).
On 6 March 1992, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and separation medical examination and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111121.
On 11 March 1992, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct. The unit commander recommended separation with a general discharge and based his recommendation on the applicant’s dishonorable failure to pay just debts, disobeying a lawful order, falsifying an official record, a traffic violation and numerous failures to repair.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights to counsel and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.
On 11 March 1992, the unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (pattern of misconduct).
The intermediate commander concurred with the recommendation for separation.
The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 3 April 1992 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (pattern of misconduct). He had served 4 years, 6 months and
26 days of total active service.
On 12 November 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an honorable 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, 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. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record. Only a general court-martial convening authority may approve an honorable discharge or delegate approval authority for an honorable discharge under this provision of regulation.
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 considered the applicant’s contention that he needs his discharge upgraded for entitlement to educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill. However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of obtaining educational benefits.
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.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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
AAO____ MHM____ KAH____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065388 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020129 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19920403 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, Chapter 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct (pattern of misconduct) |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071565C070402
His "reentry code" was recorded as "RE-3." In November 2001 the Army Discharge Review Board voted to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's discharge to honorable and to change the reason of his discharge from "Misconduct-Patterns of Misconduct" to simply "Misconduct," which was in keeping with the current provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b. The evidence confirms that the applicant’s Reentry Eligibility code was assigned based on the fact that he was separated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608189C070209
On 8 November 1991, the applicants commander advised the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him for his patterns of misconduct under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and of his rights. On 17 January 1992, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-2, under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b (misconduct-pattern of misconduct), with a general discharge under honorable conditions. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021938
He further acknowledged that if he received a discharge certificate/character of service which was less than honorable, he may make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged on 1 July 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Additionally, paragraph 14-3...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013908
The reason for this misconduct was due to him being very young when he enlisted (17 years of age). He never received any form of punishment or counseling for his work as a Soldier, only for financial issues conducted off duty. There is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military term of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509474C070209
APPLICANT STATES: That he was charged with drunk driving and given NJP, but he was not driving. On his enlistment contract, he elected educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill which obligated him to contribute $100 a month for his first 12 months of service in order to receive a maximum basic benefit of $10,800 upon completion of his 4 year obligation with an honorable discharge [his actual contributions only totaled $1,157]. Upon hearing all of the testimony, the board voted to...
ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120008575
Applicant Name: ????? On 9 November 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The record indicates that the separation authority approved the discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct (serious offense); however, the applicants DD Form 214 shows the reason for his separation as pattern of misconduct under authority of AR...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023201
On 19 March 1993, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct, commission of a serious offense and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant was accordingly discharged on 26 March 1993. The regulation states the reason for discharge based on separation code "JKQ" is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)" and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010412
As new issues, the applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) as follows: * item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) to add the Overseas Service Ribbon, Army Commendation Medal, and Army Achievement Medal (2nd Award) * item 25 (Separation Authority) to show paragraph 14-12b instead of paragraph 14-12c(1) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 3. On 21 December 1994,...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130005504
Specifically for the following offenses: a. falsifying an official document, to wit: DD Form 689 (Individual Sick Slip) b. going AWOL (110922-110927) 2. On 24 February 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 7 March 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013075
On 10 February 1992, the applicant's company commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separation), chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct - pattern of misconduct, with a general discharge. On 19 February 1992, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b for...