| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he did not receive a fair hearing before being discharged and contends that the approving authority only heard one side. He goes on to state that the Board should find it in the interest of justice to upgrade his discharge because every man or woman deserves a fair shot at justice. He also states that he made a mistake in his actions but justice was not upheld by only allowing one side to be heard.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Jacksonville, Florida, on 15 October 1992, for a period of 3 years and training as a cannon crewmember. He completed his training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and was transferred to Fort Riley, Kansas.
On 20 April 1993, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for striking another soldier with his fist. His punishment consisted of 6 days of extra duty.
The applicant was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 15 December 1994 and on 3 February 1995, NJP was imposed against him for the wrongful use of marijuana between 28 October and 28 November 1994. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
On 14 February 1995, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to bar the applicant from reenlistment. He cited the applicant’s disciplinary record as the basis for his recommendation. The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and the appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 3 March 1995. The applicant elected not to appeal the bar.
On 19 May 1995, NJP was imposed against him for being disrespectful in language and deportment towards a noncommissioned officer. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
On 20 June 1995, 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. He cited the applicant’s disciplinary record and his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions as the basis for his recommendation.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. However, the evidence of record indicates that he failed to do so.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 6 July 1995 and directed that he be furnished with a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 26 July 1995, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12C(2), for misconduct. He had served 2 years, 9 months and 12 days of total active service.
He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 2 March 1996. He asserted at that time that he had made some bad mistakes and decisions, but that he had paid severely for them. He went on to state that he joined the Army to earn money for college and without an upgrade of his discharge, he would be unable to use those benefits. The ADRB opined that he had been properly and equitably discharged and voted unanimously to deny his request on 11 March 1997.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct. Specific categories include minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
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 procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted and appear to be without merit. He was afforded the opportunity, with the assistance of counsel, to submit matters in his own behalf at the time of the administrative separation processing and failed to do so. Therefore, the appropriate authority based his decision to
discharge him based on the evidence of record at the time. Inasmuch as the applicant offered no evidence that disputed the evidence provided by the recommending commander, the Board finds that his service did not warrant a fully honorable discharge and that the decision made by the discharge authority was proper.
4. Accordingly, the applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
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
___ls ___ __pm ___ __dh____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002071620 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/06 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1995/07/26 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | MISCONDUCT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 626 | 144.6000/A60.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087366C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: However, the evidence of record clearly shows that he was convicted by a summary court-martial and he had NJP imposed against him on three separate occasions as a result of acts of misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075160C070403
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. There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071577C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He departed Germany on 21 July 1978, en route to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, with a report date of 24 August 1978. He failed to report as ordered and was reported as AWOL from 24 August 1978, until he was returned to military control on 7 September and charges were preferred against him for the absent without leave (AWOL) offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003972
On 28 January 1986, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him violating a lawful general regulation by operating a government vehicle at an excessive speed. He enlisted in the NYARNG on 7 April 1994 for a period of 3 years and on 9 November 1995, he was granted a waiver to remain in the NYARNG after it was determined that his enlistment was fraudulent because he had concealed his arrest record. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087256C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068699C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082471C070215
On 15 January 1992, the applicant's commander officially notified him that he was being recommended for discharge with a GD under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for a pattern of misconduct. Army policy states that a under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an HD may be granted. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002082471SUFFIXRECONDATE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100770C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 December 2004 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004100770 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, in effect, reconsideration of his of earlier request to correct his record to show he was retired due to a physical disability with pay and benefits, in lieu of being discharged with a general...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105306C070208
The application submitted in this case is dated 8 March 2004. On 24 February 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091662C070212
The applicant was reduced to the rank and pay grade, Private, E-1 with an effective date and date of rank of 11 December 1995. On 23 January 1998, the ADRB notified the applicant that his request for an upgrade of his discharge had been carefully reviewed and the board had determined that he had been properly and equitably discharged; accordingly, his request for a change in the character and/or reason for his discharge had been denied. The applicant made application to the Army Board for...