| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaugnessy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was born with a heart condition (Bicuspid Aortic Valve) that was not found during his pre-enlistment physical examination. He indicates this condition was diagnosed while an employee with a private contractor at the Stennis Space Center, Mississippi in 1998. He should not have been able to enlist in the military service. Further, he contends that this medical condition was the reason he was separated from the military with an uncharacterized discharge.
He contends that he could not keep his job with the private contractor as a Security Patrolman because of his medical condition.
He provides a letter of support from the private contractor project manager indicating he was employed from 13 February 1998 until his resignation effective 8 September 1998. He performed his traffic enforcement duties with a high degree of professionalism and was an extremely reliable employee.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 23 November 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve Delayed Enlistment Program.
On 21 January 1986, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years and training of choice, college option and cash bonus enlistment option ($5,000).
During the period 24 January to 2 April 1986, he was formally counseled on 24 occasions for his failure to pass physical fitness tests, failure to maintain his living area, failure to maintain his personal appearance, and his lack of initiative.
On 2 April 1986, the unit commander notified the applicant of his initiation of separation action under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200 with an uncharacterized discharge based on his apathetic attitude and making no effort to develop proficiency in soldier tasks. He was advised of his rights. He did not desire legal counsel and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
A Report of Mental Status Evaluation cleared the applicant for separation.
On 10 April 1986, the appropriate separation authority approved the request and directed the applicant’s uncharacterized discharge.
On 15 April 1986, he received an uncharacterized discharge under the above-cited regulation. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates he had 2 months and 23 days of creditable service.
On 27 August 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 11, of this regulation, in effect at the time, provided, for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status within 180 days of service. This provision of regulation applied to individuals who had demonstrated that they were not qualified for retention because they could not adapt socially or emotionally to military life, or because they lacked the aptitude, ability, motivation or self discipline for military service, or that they had demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service. The separation policy applies to soldiers who cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline. The regulation provides for uncharacterized service for separation under this chapter.
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 was properly separated in accordance with regulations then in effect, and he has not shown otherwise. He is not entitled to a change of the characterization of his discharge from uncharacterized to honorable.
2. There is nothing in the available records, nor has the applicant provided any evidence that would support his contention that his alleged medical condition was the cause for his apathetic attitude or his lack of proficiency in soldier tasks.
3. His contention that he was erroneously enlisted into the Army is not supported by the evidence of record.
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___ _teo____ _hfo____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067917 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020430 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010425C070208
The applicant states that, on 14 April 2004, he was informed by the VCSA that the CSA was reviewing his retirement application, the DAIG ROI, and the MOC in making a retirement grade determination. By memorandum dated 14 April 2004, the VCSA, General C___, informed the applicant that the Acting SA had carefully reviewed his retirement application and the adverse information attributed to him during his tenure as Director, OFTF. U. S. Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018348
There is no evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his entry level status characterization of service within its 15-year statute of limitations. His entry level status characterization of service was and still is appropriate based on his brief period of service and reason for his release from active duty. There is no evidence of record and he has not shown any evidence to show he was released from active duty on any date other than 12 December 1987 or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005163
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). There is no evidence indicating the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a change to his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The record also shows the applicant's service was described as uncharacterized as a result of his being separated while in ELS.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004102182C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. There is no evidence the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013798
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Subsequent to this acknowledgement, the applicants immediate commander recommended the applicant's separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11. When separated within the first 180 days, service is usually not characterized unless the circumstances of the separation warrant an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500183
ISSUES TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s representative (American Legion): Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered: Unofficial transcripts for undergraduate courses, dated August 18, 2004 (2 pages) Service School Academic Evaluation Report, dated September 20, 2002 Letter from State of Ohio, The Adjutant General’s Department, dated April 3, 2003 (2...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2008-035
The applicant alleged that the marks he received in this first EER at the Waterways Division show that his next two sets of marks from that command were inaccu- rate and unfair. states that the Supervisor in a rating chain must “clearly communicate goals and acceptable standards of performance to the evaluee before and throughout the marking period”; provide a means by which the evaluee may provide input on his performance; complete the EER with recommended marks and any required supporting...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011906
The applicant requests correction of his service from "Entry Level Status" to "Honorable." On 15 December 1986, by endorsement, the applicants immediate commander recommended the applicant be separated from the Army under the provisions of chapter 11 of Army Regulation 635-200 for lack of motivation and desire to become an effective Soldier. When separated within the first 180 days, service is usually not characterized unless the circumstances of the separation warrant an under other than...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017514
She completed training and she was awarded MOS 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic). Her record contains a Characterization of Service Checklist for Administrative Discharge Actions, dated 7 November 1978, that was completed by her immediate commander. The applicants request for upgrade of her general discharge to an honorable discharge was carefully considered.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001014
On 9 January 1976, his unit commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program), with a recommendation for a general discharge. The applicant was discharged with a general discharge on 30 January 1976. The applicant has not provided any evidence that he has been denied any benefit or consideration as a veteran based on the terminology utilized on his discharge...