| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That she be authorized separation pay and that her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow her to reenter the military.
APPLICANT STATES: That if she had gotten the upgraded discharge at the time of her discharge she would have been entitled to separation pay.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant had continuous service from 30 October 1990. She reenlisted as a sergeant (E-5) on 6 November 1997.
The applicant's command was notified that she had tested positive for marijuana on an 11 March 1998 command directed urinalysis.
Based on this positive urinalysis, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on 9 April 1998. Her punishment was reduction in grade to E-4, forfeiture of $779 pay, and 45 days of extra duty. The forfeiture and extra duty were to be suspended and automatically remitted if not vacated before 7 July 1998.
On 16 April 1998, the applicant's company commander notified her of the commencement of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, commission of a serious offense.
The applicant was afforded physical examination and mental status evaluation (MSE). The MSE, conducted 5 May 1998, found that the applicant was mentally capable of understanding and participation in the proceeding: mentally responsible, and had no mental disease or defect which warranted disposition through medical channels. The report noted that the applicant adamantly denied any wrong doings. She was psychologically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command. The physical examination found no physical disqualifying conditions and that she was qualified for separation.
On 27 May 1998, the applicant's company commander formally recommended that she be discharged and recommended that she receive a general under honorable conditions discharge.
The applicant acknowledged her rights under the UCMJ and waived her right to consult with a counsel, to have a hearing before an administrative board, or to present written statements in her own behalf.
The intermediate commander concurred with the unit commander's recommendations.
On 9 June 1998, the discharge authority approved the discharge but directed that the applicant be separated under other than honorable conditions.
The applicant was discharged under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph
14-12c, commission of a serious offense, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service and an RE-4. She had 7 years, 7 months, and 17 days of creditable service. Her awards and decorations are listed as the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal (second award), the Good Conduct Award (second award), the National Defense Service Medal, the Humanitarian Service Medal, the Noncommissioned Officer's Professional Development Ribbon with Numeral 2, the Army Service Ribbon, the Army Overseas Ribbon, and the Marksman Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.
On 3 August 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) granted the applicant an upgrade of the characterization of her service to general under honorable conditions but denied her any change in narrative reason for 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. Specifically paragraph 14-12c is for a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, absence without leave, or other actions that a punitive discharge is authorized under the UCMJ. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
Volume 7A, chapter 35 of the DoD Financial Management Regulation states that to qualify for separation pay the service member who is involuntarily separated must meet each (emphasis added) of the following requirements:
1. The member must have completed at least 6 but less than 20 years of service;
2. The member's separation is characterized as "honorable";
3. The member is being involuntarily separated through the denial of reenlistment under one of the following:
a. The member is fully qualified for retention but is denied reenlistment;
b. The member is fully qualified but is being denied reenlistment under a reduction in force;
c. The member is a Reserve officer who is being transferred to the Retired Reserve; or,
d. The member is denied reenlistment and accepts an earlier separation from active duty.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant was discharged for commission of a serious offense. The fact that the ADRB determined that her characterization of service should be under honorable conditions has no bearing on her eligibility for separation pay. The applicant did not then nor does she now meet the criteria for entitlement to separation pay since she was not denied reenlistment but was discharged due to her own misconduct.
2. The correction of appropriate military records to show an RE code which would allow her to reenlist, in effect, constitutes a request for removal or waiver of those disqualifications which preclude reenlistment. The applicant has provided no evidence that her discharge for misconduct was improper. Therefore, there is no basis for changing the applicant's RE code.
3. 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.
4. 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.
| CASE ID | AR2002072638 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021217 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.03 |
| 2. | 100.06 |
| 3. | 128.08 |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000049
On 9 March 2000, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. Here, the applicant's active duty service was interrupted by her serious misconduct, not by any...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020811
A DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice), dated 14 December 2007, shows nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed by the battalion commander against the applicant for her wrongful use of marijuana. The applicant's company commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate action to separate her from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, based on...
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 | CY2011 | 20110007947
She provides her reissued DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), three military medical documents, a Chatt-Flint Mental Health/Mental Retardation/Substance Abuse Services client history, and a DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation). A DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form), dated 3 April 1990, indicated she was being recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) due to being a disciplinary problem...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024408
The applicant indicated she was providing medical records with her application; however these records were not with the application when it was received. The commander advised the applicant of her right to have her case considered by a board officers (if she had 6 or more years of total active and reserve service or an under other than honorable conditions recommendation is made by the separation authority), to appear in person before a board officers, to submit statements in her own...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016437
A Soldier had reported someone had stolen her military identification (ID) card, used it to open a Circuit City account and purchase computer equipment and other items, obtain a mail box at the Fort Irwin post office, and acquire a loan from a financial institution. On 5 June 1998, the separation authority approved the discharge action, directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank and that she be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The DD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021130
On 17 November 1989, the commanding general/separation authority approved the conditional waiver and ordered the applicant discharged from the Army under the provisions of chapter 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs with the issuance of an under honorable conditions discharge. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) she was issued confirms she was discharged for misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14, Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003888
The applicant provides a 14 page narrative summary of her military background; household goods claims; Article 15, dated 16 December 1997, and appeal; Administrative Board hearing, dated 5 January 1998, appeal and witness statements/affidavits; separation documents; excerpts from Army Regulation 27-20 (Legal Service Claims); Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-162 (Legal Services Claims Procedures); a letter from her psychologist, dated 23 October 2006; and three witness statements and one...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006221C070206
The applicant states that she was not given the chance to rehabilitate in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 1, paragraphs 1-15 and 1-16; chapter 3, paragraphs 3-1, 3-4, 3-7, 3-11 and 3-12; and chapter 4, paragraphs 4-1, 4-2, 4-7, 4-8 and 4-10. Pertinent Army regulations provide that, prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. There is no evidence of record which shows the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001238
The applicant requests an upgrade of her general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. The evidence of record shows that as part of her separation processing, she was seen by both a mental health provider and a medical doctor, her medical conditions were reviewed, and she was found fit for retention in the Army. Moreover, the appeal authority considered her explanation of the possible reason she tested positive for THC and he denied her appeal.