| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Joyce A. Hall | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he failed to conform to the discipline and regulations that was required of him. The many indiscretions and childish behavior that he displayed were due to his immaturity. Since leaving the Army, he has become a good, honest and law abiding citizen.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was born on 6 February 1974. On 12 August 1992, he enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B10 (Cannon Crewmember). The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.
On 29 August and on 31 August 1992, while assigned to a unit at Fort Sill, Oklahoma the applicant was counseled on two separate occasions for failure to follow instructions.
On or about 19 November 1992, the applicant was assigned to a unit at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
On 13 January and on 20 January 1993, the applicant was counseled on two separate occasions for failure to follow instructions, and for being out of uniform.
On 27 January 1993, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to follow instructions and for failure to repair. His imposed punishment was 14 days restriction and extra duty.
Between 23 and 25 February 1993, the applicant was counseled on three separate occasions for failure to follow instructions, for being out of uniform, for disobeying a lawful order and for lying to a non-commission officer.
On 18 June 1993, the applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $189.00 pay, 14 days restriction and extra duty.
Between 25 and 26 August 1993, the applicant was counseled on three separate occasions for failure to follow instructions, for failure to shave and for failing to maintain accountability of TA-50.
Between 8 and 16 September 1993, the applicant was counseled on three separate occasions for failure to follow instructions, and for being out of uniform.
On 30 September 1993, the applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order (to get a haircut). His imposed punishment was 14 days restriction and extra duty.
On 27 October 1993, the applicant was barred from reenlisting. The commander’s decision was based on the applicant’s disciplinary record.
On 1 March 1994, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct. The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but declined to do so.
A mental and physical evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.
On 8 March 1994, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 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. He had completed 1 year, 7 months and 12 days of creditable active service.
On 30 June 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his 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 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.
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 evidence of record shows that the applicant’s discharge was based on his misconduct. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. The Board notes the applicant’s contentions. However, these factors do not overcome the serious nature of the offenses and his demonstrated disregard for military authority and therefore are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.
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
__CLA__ __BJE__ __DPH___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069360 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/13 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1994/03/23 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Chapter 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.6000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021324
The applicant's immediate commander notified him on 22 March 1994 of his intent to initiate separation action against the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct pattern of misconduct. The applicant's immediate commander recommended his separation from the Army on 22 March 1994, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511651C070209
On 7 September 1994, the commander notified the applicant that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. On 4 October 1994, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014385
The applicant requests that his general discharge be changed to an honorable discharge. On 13 May 1994, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, with issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. On 19 May 1994, he was discharged accordingly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008149
The applicant was counseled again on 21 March 1994, for failure to pay his debts. He was informed that if his behavior continued, action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, would be initiated. On 20 December 1994, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and he directed that the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023201
On 19 March 1993, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct, commission of a serious offense and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant was accordingly discharged on 26 March 1993. The regulation states the reason for discharge based on separation code "JKQ" is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)" and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067166C070402
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. On 24 June 1996, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the above-cited regulation with a general discharge under honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000646C070205
The applicant states, that his records will verify his entitlement to two awards of the ARCOM, the NDSM, three awards of the AAM, the Liberation of Kuwait Medal, three awards of the GCMDL, his service in Operation Desert Storm and that his MOS was 36L2H. In April 1997, the applicant submitted an application to the Board requesting that his DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect his award of the Southwest Asia Service Medal (SWASM). As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017438C070206
The applicant requests to present his case before a formal panel of the Board. The applicant states his command did not take into consideration his nearly eight years of honorable service. Pursuant to Article 66(b), UCMJ, the record of trial was referred to the United States Army Court of Military Review (ACMR).
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607539C070209
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 February 1998 DOCKET NUMBER: AC96-07539 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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. However, the actions by this Board does not preclude the applicant from applying to the ADRB at a later date.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011806
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 23 March 1987 and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, on 8 April 1987, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army...