| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his records be corrected to eliminate any reference to his AWOL (absence without leave), assault on a NCO (noncommissioned officer) and “further rehabilitative efforts.” He also requests, in effect, upgrade of his discharge to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That the assault on an NCO should not be classified as assault solely on the NCO’s impression. The MP (military police) blotter does not specify the nature of the report. The statements contained in minutes “taint” and unfairly bias him. The record shows none of the attributes, only detractors. He indicates he is incarcerated and wishes to enroll in long term education program and cannot afford class fees. An upgraded DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) will extend his GI Bill for 10 years.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
During the period 2 September to 8 November 1987, he was in the Army Reserve Delayed Enlistment Program.
On 9 November 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Army for 4 years. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewmember). He was advanced to pay grade E-4 effective 1 January 1990.
During the period 4 March 1988 to 5 December 1990, he served in Germany.
On 26 January 1989, he was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform code of Military Justice for his failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 20 January 1989. His punishment included extra duty for 14 days and restriction for 14 days (suspended for 1 month).
On 4 October 1990, he was administered NJP for being AWOL during the period 26 August to 12 September 1990, for assault on an NCO on 29 July 1990 and for disobeying a lawful order on 29 July 1990. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of $350.00 pay and extra duty for 30 days.
On 11 October 1990, a psychiatric examination cleared him for separation.
On 15 October 1990, a mental status evaluation cleared him for separation.
On 30 October 1990, 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 and of his rights in this matter. In addition to this, the applicant has received numerous derogatory counseling statements concerning his off duty behavior, lack of initiative, lack of motivation, lack of discipline, failure to accept responsibility, substandard personal appearance, substandard job performance, poor attitude towards the military, failure to maintain registration of his POV, operating an unregistered vehicle, fleeing the scene of an accident, being overdrawn on his checking account and frequent accounts of missing formations and being late to his appointed place of duty.
On 30 October 1990, after consulting with legal counsel, he acknowledged that he had been advised of his commander’s action.
On 16 November 1990, the appropriate separation authority approved the discharge and directed reduction to the pay grade E-3.
On 6 December 1990, he was discharged, in pay grade E-3, under the above-cited regulation, based on his misconduct, with a General Discharge. His separation document indicates he had 3 years and 28 days of creditable service, and 17 days of lost time.
On 15 March 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board reviewed his request for upgrade and found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request.
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 a 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.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member'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 inappropriate.
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. The applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. His discharge was clearly caused by his misconduct and there is no evidence available to indicate that the NJP was improperly administered.
4. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions; however, he has not provided justification for eliminating the adverse entries from his records as he requested.
5. 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.
6. 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
_RJW____ _RWA___ _JTM___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002072702 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021010 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 126.04 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001639
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to general under honorable conditions. On 5 October 1987, the applicant's immediate commander initiated a recommendation to eliminate him from the Army by reason of misconduct. _______ _ X _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022463
"Service-connected disabilities" is not an Army reason for separation. His separation code and narrative reason for separation were assigned based on the discharge separation authority of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to: * correcting his DD Form 214 to show the narrative reason for his separation as "service-connected disability" instead of "misconduct - pattern of misconduct" * restoration...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003730C070205
On 7 December 1989, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to bar the applicant from reenlistment. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 17 August 1990, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. There is no indication 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004933
In a memorandum, dated 13 January 1989, the applicant was advised by a general officer that he was required to show cause for retention on active duty because of substandard performance of duty, as evidenced by his release from the 60th Ordnance Company due to unsatisfactory performance, his permanent disqualification from the PRP, and his inability to separate his personal life from his professional life. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010782C070208
Richard T. Dunbar | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. During the counseling he was informed that he was being considered for elimination from the military based on his continuous offenses of misconduct. Accordingly, on 6 November 1989, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions (general), under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, based on misconduct-commission of a serious offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511105C070209
On 16 November 1992 the applicant appeared before a board of inquiry and was informed that the GOSCA had directed the board president to proceed with the hearing without live testimony of the applicants witnesses. The chain of command supported the findings and recommendations of the board of inquiry and forwarded the case to the Army Board of Review for Eliminations (The summarized transcript of the board of inquiry is not present in the available records). It states, in pertinent part,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009360
The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of his separation shows he was discharged under chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-120 (Personnel Separations; Officer Resignations and Discharges), for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073295C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The removal of an officer evaluation report (OER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), reappointment as a commissioned officer, and promotion to the rank of major, effective 10 August 2000. The applicant was counseled concerning the reason for his relief and was given a copy of the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation report that was used as the basis for his relief. He stated that the applicant does not have promotion potential and that the report complied...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053139C070420
The Inspector General inquiry determined: “No evidence existed that [applicant’s name omitted] actually filed an Article 138 complaint against his Company Commander. The applicant was advised by military counsel to appeal the bar to reenlistment and to file an Article 138 complaint and he did not do either. Evidence of record shows that he chose to not appeal the QMP decision and request retention on active duty on the basis of improved performance based on the argument that he met Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000981C070206
On 28 September 1987, the applicant's unit commander recommended that a bar to reenlistment be imposed against him for the two nonjudicial punishments under Article 15 he received on 21 May 1987 and 24 September 1987. The applicant was discharged on 12 July 1988 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2) for misconduct commission of a serious offense. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its...