Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD); and that the authority and narrative reason for his separation be changed.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his service record will clearly indicate that his service up until the time of the alleged incident was impeccable. The administrative separation board he appeared before was not bound by the rules of evidence, and did not consider his record of military service prior to making a decision. He comments that, he served in every branch of the United States Army and was honorably discharged from each. He concludes that one incident should not have been the reason for such a discharge and he was offered no marital counseling or rehabilitative procedures at the time.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 15 January 1991, the applicant began the enlistment under review. At the time, he had completed 4 years, 3 months, and 28 days of prior honorable active military service and held the rank of specialist four/E-4.
The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows that during this enlistment, he was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91M (Hospital Food Service Specialist), and that on 1 February 1994, he was promoted to sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5), which was the highest rank he held while serving on active duty.
The applicant’s record also indicates that during his active duty tenure he earned the following awards: Army Service Ribbon; National Defense Service Medal; Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award); Army Achievement Medal (2nd Award); Expert Medical Badge; Overseas Service Ribbon; Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon; Parachute Badge; Expert Marksmanship Badge (Hand Grenade); and Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge (M-16 Rifle).
The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor of significant achievement; however, it does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 22 November 1995. The specific offense for which this NJP was imposed is not on file; however, it is clear from the available documentation that this NJP resulted in reduction to specialist four/E-4
(SP4/E-4).
The separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s separation processing is not in the record. However, it is clear from the applicant’s own admission that he was afforded the right to counsel and that his case was considered by an administrative separation board prior to his being discharged. In addition, there is a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) on file that was issued to the applicant on the date of his separation, and that identifies the authority, reason, and characterization of his discharge.
The DD Form 214 confirms that on 21 February 1996, the applicant was discharged, under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense. This document also verifies that at the time of his separation, he had completed 5 years, 1 months, and 7 days of his enlistment and a total of 9 years, 5 months, and 5 days of active military service.
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. An honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge may be issued; however, the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
On 19 October 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s case, and it determined that the quality of the applicant’s overall record of service was sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to a GD. However, the ADRB concluded that the authority and reason for his discharge was proper and equitable and it voted not to change it.
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 that his overall record of service warrants a upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable and a change to the authority and narrative reason for his separation. However, the Board finds an insufficient evidentiary basis to support the requested relief.
2. The applicant’s record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. However, by his own admission, he was afforded the right to counsel and his case considered by an administrative separation board.
3. Further, the record does include a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was issued to the applicant on the date of his discharge. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge, and the Board presumed government regularity in the discharge process.
4. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Therefore, the Board concludes a change to the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge is not warranted.
5. The Board concurs with the ADRB decision to upgrade the applicant’s discharge to a GD, based on his overall record of service. However, it finds that his misconduct clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant’s overall record of service is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade of his discharge beyond the GD already granted by the ADRB.
6. 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.
7. 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__ __RWA__ __KYF__ DENY APPLICATION
CASE ID | AR2001066144 |
SUFFIX | |
RECON | |
DATE BOARDED | 2002/04/04 |
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1996/02/21 |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C14 |
DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct |
BOARD DECISION | DENY |
REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
2. | |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090054C070212
First by court-martial and second by being discharged. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he was informed by his legal advisor that his discharge would be automatically upgraded within two years, and it carefully considered the character references he submitted in support of his case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080553C070215
The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant at the time confirmed that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial, and accordingly was assigned an SPD code of 246. It also stipulates that a bronze service star is authorized with this award for each campaign a member was credited with while serving in the RVN. Therefore, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059265C070421
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. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that a change to the reason for his discharge is supported by documents in his military service record. On 19 May 1992, the appropriate separation authority after reviewing the separation packet to include the applicant’s statement, directed he be separated with a GD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010721C070208
Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The record also shows the ADRB voted to upgrade the characterization of the applicant’s discharge based on her overall record of service. By regulation, the RE-4 code assigned the applicant was the proper code to assign members separating under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200 for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017060
The applicant requests that his General Discharge (GD) be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge (HD). Following his misconduct, the applicant was notified by his commander that administrative separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), for misconduct. Army policy states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086112C070212
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was informed that 6 months from the date of his separation from the Army his discharge would be upgraded to an HD. On 25 July 1996, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be discharged for commission of a serious offense under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200. On 5 March 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006845
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD). The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), by reason of misconduct drug abuse. Although the authority and reason for the applicant's discharge authorized the imposition of an under other than honorable conditions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067114C070402
The separation action was approved by the appropriate separation authority, who directed that the applicant receive a GD, and on 23 December 1998, the applicant was discharged accordingly. On 14 January 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request for a change to the narrative reason for his separation and for an upgrade of the character of his discharge. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050007670
The applicant requests, in effect, restoration of his rank of specialist (SPC); that his Army National Guard (ARNG) Separation Document (NGB Form 22) be corrected to include the Army Good Conduct Medal and Army Achievement Medal and to reflect his correct military education. The evidence of record shows that the separation document issued to the applicant by the FLARNG properly reflects his rank as SPC, and it was also corrected to reflect the authority and reason for separation recommended...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000241C070205
The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 6 September 1984. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army...