| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he believes that his time in service was honorable and that he performed to the best of his abilities at the time.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 3 May 1984 for a period of 3 years, training as a radio teletype operator and training under the airborne training option. He completed his training and was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina on 26 November 1984. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 March 1985.
On 14 September 1985, the applicant’s commander recommended that the applicant be barred from reenlistment due to multiple incidents of writing dishonored checks and for failure to pay his just debts. The applicant elected not to submit matters in his own behalf and the battalion commander approved the bar to reenlistment on 1 October 1985.
On 27 March 1986, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being absent without leave from 3 February to 11 February and 15 February to 16 March 1986. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay and 30 days confinement in the correctional custody facility.
The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 1 April 1986 and was found to be mentally responsible.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative discharge are not present in the available records. However, his records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) signed by the applicant which shows that he was discharged under honorable conditions on 10 June 1986, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. He had served 2 years of total active service and had 36 days of lost time due to AWOL.
There is no indication in the available records to show 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 Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsatisfactory performance and who were unsuitable for further military service. An individual
could be separated for unsatisfactory performance if it was determined that the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. While an honorable or general discharge may be issued, 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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations, with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.
3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board. However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his misconduct and his otherwise undistinguished record of service during such a short period of time.
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
___kah__ __ao____ __tl_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002071969 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/30 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1986/06/10 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | UNSAT PERF |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 730 | 144.7800/A78.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005157C070205
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge on 23 June 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Although the applicant contends that he was mentally unstable at the time of his discharge, medical evidence of record shows he was found mentally responsible and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074735C070403
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 | 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 | 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 | 2002079579C070215
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 | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064192C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. His request was approved on 13 February 1986. The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006100C070206
Scott W. Faught | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 17 December 1984, his unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. On 15 July 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075510C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 5 March 1985, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. Previously, Army Regulation 635-200, the pertinent paragraph in chapter 5, provided that commanders could expeditiously discharge members under the TDP who lacked the necessary motivation, discipline,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002224C070206
During February 1986 and June 1986, the applicant received three adverse counseling statements for failure to perform as an E-4 and for intent to impose separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 13 and a bar to reenlistment in accordance with Army Regulation 601-280. The applicant's service record shows he received two Article 15s, a bar to reenlistment and several adverse counseling statements. As a result, his record of service was not honorable and did not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077413C070215
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. On 2 July 1985, 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. On 16 December 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge.