| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | ||
| Mr. Christopher J. Prosser | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was separated from the Army for unsatisfactory performance, but received the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM). He states that one incident should not determine the overall quality of his military service. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 16 July 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty for 3 years. On 17 January 1982, he was discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment, and he immediately reenlisted for 6 years on 18 January 1982. His record shows that he was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman), the highest rank he held while serving on active duty was specialist four/E-4 (SP4/E-4), and that during his active duty tenure, he earned the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM).
The applicant’s record contains a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on the following two separate occasions for the offenses indicated: 17 November 1982, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 16 September 1982 to 24 September 1982; and 25 January 1983, for being AWOL from 10 December 1982 to 30 December 1982. In addition, he was formally counseled by members of his chain of command for these two periods of AWOL and for his attitude. On 26 August 1983, the applicant was barred from reenlistment based on this disciplinary record.
On 4 February 1983, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactorily performance. The reasons cited for the action were the applicant’s lack of motivation, apathy towards the Army, and the constant need for supervision.
On 7 February 1983, the applicant consulted legal counsel and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 9 February 1983, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that he receive a GD. On 24 February 1983, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 3 years, 8 months, and 11 days of active military service, and had accrued 28 days of lost time due to AWOL.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.
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 discharge should be upgraded based on his overall record of honorable service, as evidenced by his receiving the AGCM, and not based on one incident. However, it finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactorily performance, was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation was based upon his unsatisfactory performance and acts of misconduct, as evidenced by his disciplinary and counseling record, and not based on one isolated incident. In the opinion of the Board, his disciplinary history clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting an HD. Therefore, the Board concludes that his GD accurately reflects the overall quality of his service and that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.
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
FNE WTM CJP DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069047 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/05/02 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19830224 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 CH13 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unsatisfactory Performance |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 149.4900 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082037C070215
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: The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded based on his overall record of honorable service, as evidenced by his receiving the ARCOM and the AGCM. Therefore, the Board concludes that his GD accurately reflects the overall quality of his service and that the requested...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079815C070215
Members who failed to meet the Army weight control standards who were recommended for separation by their commanders were processed under these provisions of the regulation. The evidence of record confirms that the sole reason for the applicant’s discharge was his failure to meet AWCP standards. However, under current regulatory standards, the reason for the applicant’s discharge would not warrant a GD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067210C070402
The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation was based upon his unsatisfactory performance as a soldier, of which his failure to meet Army weight standards was only a part. Notwithstanding the applicant’s medical history, the Board finds that the applicant’s disciplinary history and poor duty performance clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge, and there is no basis for granting him credit for 2 additional days...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010999C071029
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations. Further, the applicant's misconduct clearly diminished his overall record of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011231C070208
He also requests, in effect, that his character of service be upgraded from general to honorable and that his discharge for unsatisfactory performance be changed. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged on 20 July 1983 in accordance with the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635- 200 for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant contends that his RE Codes of RE-3/3C should be upgraded, his character of service should be changed from general to honorable, and the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060591C070421
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...
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100024048
Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 1 September 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for being unable to meet the military standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of a lack of motivation and his inability to adapt to the military, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063346C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The convening authority approved the sentence on 29 April 1983; however, he set aside the portion of the sentence pertaining to the forfeiture of pay on 9 May 1983. On 17 October 1983, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, based on his disciplinary record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013217
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant submits an Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States (DD Form 293) in support of his application. The applicant's acts of misconduct demonstrated by this disciplinary record clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge, and supported his separation for unsatisfactory performance.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100047C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. It further states that members who have failed to meet body fat standards after applying the procedures in AR 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program) will be separated under this chapter. The evidence of record includes Army Weight Control Program documents that confirm the applicant was provided counseling and ample opportunity over several months to conform to Army weight control standards.