| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show that his characterization of service was fully honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he wants his discharge status upgraded to an honorable discharge so that he may go to college.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
During the period 20 August to 29 November 1992, he was a member of the Idaho Army National Guard (IDARNG).
During the period 30 November 1992 to 25 June 1993, he was on active duty for training, as a member of the IDARNG.
During the period 26 June 1993 to 25 April 1994, he was in the IDARNG.
On 26 April 1994, he enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13M (Master Locating Radar System Crewmember). He was advanced to pay grade E-4.
On 18 April 1996, he was issued nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for adultery between 31 October and 19 November 1995. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of $260 pay per month for 2 months, which was suspended until 22 October 1996, extra duty for 14 days and restriction for 14 days. On 28 May 1996, the suspension of pay was vacated.
On 29 May 1996, a mental status evaluation cleared him for separation.
On 10 June 1996, he was issued NJP for his wrongful overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs, incapacitating him for proper performance of his duties on 3 June 1996. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $437 pay per month for 2 months, extra duty for 45 days and restriction for 45 days.
On 14 June 1996, his commander advised him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, based on his pattern of misconduct. The commander also indicated that between January and May 1996, the applicant was formally counseled by members of his chain of command on 8 occasions for his failure to get a haircut and a driving license, his performance, missing formations, indebtedness and finally, his separation. He was advised of his rights.
On 14 June 1996, he acknowledged that he had been advised of his commander’s action and of his rights.
On 18 June 1996, the appropriate separation authority approved the discharge under honorable conditions with issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.
On 24 June 1996, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the above-cited regulation with a general discharge under honorable conditions. His separation document indicates he had 2 years, 1 month and 29 days of creditable service.
On 21 December 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board reviewed his request for upgrade and found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request.
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.
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.
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
_djs___ _gdp_____ _dsj____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067166 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020326 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053043C070420
On 19 July 1996, 17 July 1997, and 27 May 1998, the applicant was notified by letter, signed by the IDARNG Adjutant General, that he had been considered by annual selective retention boards which recommended him among the best qualified for continued retention in the IDARNG. The National Guard Bureau Personnel Division rendered an opinion that the applicant’s record was properly reviewed by a State Adjutant General Selective Retention Board and he was not selected for retention. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708198
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 states that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069360C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 23 March 1994, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct with a general discharge. On 30 June 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090375C070212
He was promoted to major with a promotion effective date and date of rank of 21 January 2003. TPU officers selected by a mandatory board will have a promotion effective date and rank of rank no earlier than the date the board is approved provided they are assigned to a position in the higher grade. The applicant is entitled to correction of his promotion effective date and date of rank for promotion to major 1 April 2002, the day after his transfer to a Reserve TPU major's position.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090557C070212
APPLICANT STATES : In the applicant's original 10 November 1999 application to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), he stated, in effect, that he should have been allowed to serve until the end of his enlistment, that he was discharged due to his age, and that his enlistment contract was breached. Department of Military Affairs, State of Illinois Orders Number 104-87, dated 29 May 1996 show that the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard and transferred...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074857C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He’s proud to say he served the United States Army. 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 | 2001065886C070421
The applicant's service personnel records show he was appointed in the ORARNG and was granted temporary Federal Recognition on 29 June 1992. There is no evidence in the applicant's service personnel records which shows the June 1992 request for Federal Recognition was denied by the Chief, NGB. c. Correct all personnel and pay records to show that the individual concerned was appointed in the ORARNG, in the grade of CW2, with the MOS 550A, effective 29 June 1992 and has served in that grade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103071C070212
Additionally, the applicant had been issued his 20 Year Letter and there was no evidence that he could be denied his retired pay. The NGB responded to the IDARNG on 17 July 2001, and denied their request to transfer the applicant to the Retired Reserve. Since the applicant has received a discharge from the Naval Reserve and been issued a 20-year letter for eligibility for retired pay at age 60 by the IDARNG, it would also be in the interest of justice to show that he was transferred to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018509
Military Department of Indiana, Indianapolis, Orders 047-022, dated 9 March 1994, honorably separated him from the INARNG effective 28 March 1994 and transferred him to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement). There is no evidence he requested to be transferred to the Retired Reserve prior to 28 March 1994. There is no evidence he requested to be transferred to the Retired Reserve at that time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004391
On 11 November 1992, the 102nd ARCOM Command Surgeon provided a medical review which shows the applicant: * had not attended inactive duty training (IDT) since June 1992 * was approved for Social Security disability * was diagnosed with active paranoid schizophrenia with active hallucinations * was receiving $800 per month from the VA * met the criteria of having a psychotic condition with gross impairment in reality testing, resulting in interference with duty or social adjustment, a...