Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065559C070421
Original file (2001065559C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 9 April 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001065559

         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. Beverly A. Young Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor Chairperson
Mr. Raymond J. Wagner Member
Mr. Donald P. Hupman 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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was young and immature when he joined the Army and was not prepared to be in a military environment. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); Chapter 14 discharge proceedings; DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record); Report of Results of Trial; two Article 15s; numerous copies of Training Progress Notes, Trainee Observation Reports, Progress Reports, and Behavioral Rating Scales.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 June 1979 for a period of 3 years and completed basic and advanced individual training. In October 1979, he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, as a track vehicle mechanic.

On 9 January 1980, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for being absent from his unit for one duty day. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for 1 month and 14 days extra duty.

On 18 June 1981, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being disrespectful and disobeying an officer. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 45 days, forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 2 months and reduction to private.

On 1 July 1981, the applicant was assigned to the U.S. Army Retraining Brigade (USARB) in Fort Riley, Kansas. During this assignment, he received several adverse counseling reports for being late for formation, for failing barracks inspection, breach of peace, and disobeying a lawful order.

The applicant received nonjudicial punishment again on 2 September 1981, for leaving his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for 1 month (suspended for 30 days), 10 days restriction to billets, dining facility, chapel, and training, and 10 days extra duty for 3 hours per day, as directed by the charge of quarters. On 8 September 1981, the suspension of punishment of forfeiture of $75.00 was vacated.

On 14 September 1981, the applicant was notified of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. He acknowledged the notification, consulted with legal counsel, waived his right to a hearing before an administrative separation board, and did not submit statements in his own behalf.

On 2 October 1981, the separation authority waived rehabilitation requirements, approved the separation action, and directed issuance of an UOTHC Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 8 October 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. He had 2 years, 2 months and 18 days of creditable service and 36 days of lost time due to confinement.

There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, 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 serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absences 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. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

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. While assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for being absent for one duty day. On 18 June 1981, he was convicted by a special court-martial of disrespecting and disobeying an officer .

2. On 1 July 1981, the applicant was transferred to the USARB at Fort Riley, Kansas for the purpose of receiving correctional training and treatment necessary to return him to duty as a well-trained soldier with improved attitude and motivation. However, during his tenure at the USARB, the applicant committed numerous acts of indiscipline and was administered nonjudicial punishment and subsequently the suspended portions of his punishment were vacated for additional offenses.

3. Based on his performance and conduct at the USARB, his unit commander determined that he should be separated for misconduct based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.

4. 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.
5. The Board considered the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge, his contentions and available evidence. The applicant’s contention that he was young and immature and could not handle a military environment was noted by the Board.

6. In reviewing the applicant’s record, the Board noted his record of indiscipline, to include nonjudicial punishments and a special court-martial. The Board also noted that he received a substantial opportunity to rehabilitate himself at the USARB but continued to commit acts of indiscipline resulting in further nonjudicial punishment. As a result, the Board concluded that the applicant’s service warranted the type of discharge directed and the reasons for his separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

7. 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.

8. 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

RVO____ RJW_____ DPH ____ DENY APPLICATION



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



INDEX

CASE ID AR2001065559
SUFFIX
RECON YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED 20020409
TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE 19811008
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200,chapter 14-33b(1)
DISCHARGE REASON Misconduct – Frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY Mr. Chun
ISSUES 1. 144.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004663

    Original file (20120004663.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He had behavior problems, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and he requested a discharge. On 21 April 1981, the applicant was accordingly discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-33b(1). _______________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069956C070402

    Original file (2002069956C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 26 November 1973, the applicant submitted an appeal to the punishment of the Article 15 proceedings, dated 10 October 1973. In reviewing the applicant’s record, the Board noted his record of indiscipline, to include nonjudicial punishments and a special court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009061

    Original file (20090009061.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 January 1980, the company commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action to effect his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), chapter 14 (Misconduct), paragraph 14-33b(1), based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. On 29 January 1980, the battalion commander provided the separation authority in the applicant's case with a summary of the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064332C070421

    Original file (2001064332C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On the same date, the Cadre Review Board determined that the applicant should be separated under the On 6 October 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. Army policy states that a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606005C070209

    Original file (9606005C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 January 1978, the applicant’s commander officially recommended that the applicant be discharged under paragraph 13-5, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature; He indicated that the applicant’s conduct and efficiency were unsatisfactory; that the applicant was sent to the USARB for the purpose of receiving correctional training and treatment necessary to return him to duty as a well-trained soldier with improved attitude and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000759

    Original file (20130000759.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 November 1982, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-33b, for misconduct - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The evidence of record confirms the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019401

    Original file (20140019401.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded. His record contains a Fort Riley (FR) Form 1806 (Training Progress Notes), completed on 7 June 1982 by the applicant's team commander, which essentially states: * the team commander was recommending the applicant for elimination under the provisions of chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct), Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) due to frequent acts of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077837C070215

    Original file (2002077837C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 April 2003 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002077837 The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002077837SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20030401TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19811015DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, Chap 14DISCHARGE REASONA60.00BOARD DECISION(DENY)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026504

    Original file (20100026504.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions. On 26 June 1978, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017361

    Original file (20090017361.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 26 May 1977, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.