| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her general discharge (GD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant made no contentions.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That she enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 November 1991 for 5 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B (Military Police). She completed basic and advanced individual training and, on 2 April 1992, she was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado. She served there without any recorded disciplinary problems. On 26 May 1993, she was assigned to Italy.
On 22 June 1993, the applicant was counseled for failure to meet the minimal requirements to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test; on 5 and 6 August 1993, she was counseled for socializing with a Carabinieri (Italian National Police) while on patrol when she knew such behavior was prohibited, and for uttering worthless checks.
On 21 July 1993, the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) notified the applicant that her on-post check cashing privileges were suspended for 12 months. On 19 August 1993, the applicant was notified that fifteen personal checks totaling $1,350.28 had been returned to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service due to insufficient funds. She was also notified that it was her fourth offense and her check cashing privileges were suspended indefinitely.
On an unknown date in August 1993, the applicant enrolled in the Army Community Services Financial Assistance Program. On 15 September 1993, DFAS notified her that a check she had written to AAFES in the amount of $500.00 had been dishonored due to insufficient funds.
On 30 September 1993, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for making and uttering 19 personal checks at various AAFES locations in Italy between 25 May-19 June 1993, and for failing to maintain sufficient funds in her account for payment. Her punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1 (suspended) and 14 days' extra duty and restriction.
On 3 October 1993, the applicant made a false statement to her chain of command when she was asked about a financial transaction between herself and another soldier. The applicant obtained $650.00 from the soldier and wrote the soldier a personal check for $650.00 in order to purchase a stereo when the Post
Exchange would not take her personal check. The applicant's command questioned her about the transaction when the other soldier reported that the check had been returned due to insufficient funds. The applicant made a false statement when she told her chain of command that her mother had sent her the stereo.
On 25 January 1994, the commander notified the applicant that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, with a GD. The commander cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant's false official statement, her failure to obey a lawful order, and the uttering of worthless checks.
On an unknown date, the applicant consulted with legal counsel. She was advised of the nature of the contemplated separation action and its effects. She was also advised of the rights available to her. The applicant submitted a personal statement, as well as statements from friends and coworkers. In her personal statement, she said that she was sorry for the incidents that led to her separation action and she requested a second chance. She stated that she believed extenuating and mitigating factors led to her actions because family problems had caused her to be under a great deal of stress. She also requested an honorable discharge if she were to be separated, so that she would not experience the stigma associated with a GD when looking for employment.
On an unknown date, the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be separated with a GD and not to be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.
On 15 February 1994, the applicant was separated with a GD for misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200. She had completed 2 years, 3 months, and 9 days of creditable military service and she had no recorded lost time.
On 30 January 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of the characterization of her 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, convictions by civil authorities and 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. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may also be awarded.
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 or unjust. 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 have jeopardized her rights.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for it were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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
__sk____ __jtm___ __teo___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067634 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020606 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19940215 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.6000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00053
mere AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN SRA | ee PERSONAL APPEARANCE X RECORD REVIEW ] NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL NONE MEMBERS SITTING ea ISSUES INDEX NUMBER f iS ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD A93.11, A94.05, A94.53 447.00 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION HEARING DATE 03-05-28 CASE NUMBER FD2003-00053 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL’S RELEASE...
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00459
The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “To Whom It May Concern:Applicant) am requesting a review of my military record to obtain an Honorable Discharge versus a General, Under Honorable Discharge to obtain my education benefits from the Veterans Affairs Office. Therefore, she was discharged from the naval service with a characterization of General, under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013376
The applicant requests: * removal of a record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) * an upgrade of his general under honorable conditions discharge 2. Paragraph 3-37b(1)(a) states the decision to file the original DA Form 2627 in the performance or restricted folders in the AMHRR will be made by the imposing commander at the time NJP is imposed. The character of...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00472
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD GRADE 1 A l C 1 I NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) MEMBER SITTING 1 2 3 4 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING DATE 07 Dec 2003 CASE m B E R FD-2003-00472 Case heard at Randolph AFB, Texas. The characterization of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605913C070209
APPLICANT STATES: Through counsel, in effect, that she was never qualified to be a soldier and should not have been enlisted in the first place; that she did not intentionally issue checks with insufficient funds in her account to cover those checks; that absent without leave (AWOL) charges against her were trumped up. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: She was born on 29 March 1970 and enlisted in the Regular Army for 5 years on 2 October 1989. The pre-trial...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072118C070403
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...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2001-0484
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD2001-0484 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change of reason for discharge and change of reenlistment code. Attachment Examiner's Brief FD2001-0484 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (HGH A1C) 1. I joined the USAF at the age of 17, right out of high school.
USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400297
Relief deniedSummary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .Since 15 years have elapsed since the date of his discharge, the Applicant is not eligible for a personal appearance hearing. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members...
AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2005-00394
The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB) but declined to exercise this right. Applicant contends during his military career, he made some bad decisions, he was young and dumb and didn't have a family yet, and hc now has a family and purpose, currently works for Social Security, and has a career and wants to continue to grow. LOR, 14 NOV 95 - Financial irresponsibility.
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00326
ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE B/G [dy fe COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD CASE NUMBER FD-2003-00326 HEARING DATE 12 Nov 2003 Case heard at Washington, D.C. submit an application to the AFBCMR SIGNATURE OE SAF/MRBR 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL...