| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | ||
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was told by a major that he would be released with a fully honorable discharge. He did nothing to deserve less than a fully honorable discharge. It was not until he received his discharge papers from the National Personnel Records Center that he found he was not given a fully honorable discharge. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 March 1984. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19E (M48-M60 Armor Crewman). He completed basic airborne training.
On 18 September 1984, the applicant was counseled for failing an in-ranks command inspection of which he was fully aware.
On 3 November 1984, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go to his place of duty, missing movement of his unit to the Yakima Firing Center, and disobeying a lawful order.
On 7 November 1984, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for losing his identification card through neglect.
On 26 November 1984, the applicant was counseled by his battalion commander concerning his disregard for Army standards. His drinking to the point of returning to duty under the influence of alcohol, becoming involved in an incident which caused him to miss movement, and his receiving a driving-while- intoxicated offense after having received two safety briefings concerning alcohol abuse were specifically cited.
On 27 November 1984, the applicant was counseled by his company commander that his performance since arriving at the unit had been poor and his habit of abusing alcohol warranted his elimination. Such elimination could result in the issuance of a general or other than honorable discharge certificate and a review by any Amy appeal board may not result in an upgrade of a discharge certificate which was less than honorable.
On 28 November 1984, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.
On 29 November 1984 the applicant received a general officer reprimand for refusing to submit to a blood alcohol content test.
On 29 November 1984, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. The examining physician found the applicant to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings and to be mentally responsible.
On 12 December 1984, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.
On 12 December 1984, the applicant declined the opportunity to consult with counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 13 December 1984, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the soldier be issued a general discharge.
On 19 December 1984, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance, with a general discharge under honorable conditions. He had completed 8 months and 21 days of creditable active service and had no lost time. The applicant signed his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member may be separated when it is determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance. Commanders will separate a soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that, in the commander’s judgment, the soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.
In pertinent part, Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’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 clearly inappropriate. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
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 tend to jeopardize his rights. There is no evidence to show that he was told he would receive a fully honorable discharge and he knew when he signed his DD Form 214 that he was getting a general discharge under honorable conditions. His record of conduct and disciplinary actions does not warrant a characterization of fully honorable.
3. 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__ __RWA__ __HBO__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069740 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1984/12/19 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A04.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015045
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 April 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090015045 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicants commander signed an elimination packet on the applicant for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant signed a statement indicating that he was advised he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079078C070215
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. On 24 January 1984, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009326C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 09 AUGUST 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040009326 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge to honorable. On 4 June 1985, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge, and directed his characterization...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | AR20080015975
The applicant requests that his 1986 discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable. On 13 December 1985, the applicant was notified of his unit commanders intent to recommend him for elimination from the U.S. Army, under the provisions of paragraph 13-2a, chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) with a recommendation that he be issued a general discharge under honorable conditions. Service of individuals separated because of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076820C070215
On 29 November 1984, the applicant's commander formally recommended his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200 states that issuance of an honorable discharge certificate is predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s current enlistment with due consideration for the member’s age, length...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000151
The evidence shows the applicant was advanced to the rank/pay grade of private/E-2 on 2 December 1983. On 3 December 1984, the applicant's commander notified him he was initiating action to eliminate him from the service prior to the expiration of his term of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13. The evidence shows the applicant was discharged in the rank and pay grade of private/E-1 on 9 January 1985 under the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062302C070421
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. On 18 March 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge. Considering the applicant’s record of service and the reason for his discharge, the RE codes given were and still are appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002866
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to honorable. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. There is no policy, regulation, directive, or law that provides for the automatic upgrade of a less than fully honorable discharge from military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002127C070206
On 17 November 1984, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant in writing that he was initiating action to separate him from the service for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 13. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010444
The applicant contends, in effect, that his request for upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge should be reconsidered because the introduction of the Article 15 proceedings of nonjudicial punishment imposed against him in the COE portion of the ROP of his original request for upgrade of his discharge is inflammatory; he remained quiet with respect to his medical examination and separation processing (i.e., he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights),...