| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was refused mental health treatment and was tricked into signing a discharge, which he was told was a medical release form. He goes on to state that he wanted to stay in the Army and make it a career and was devastated that the government would treat him as they did. Since his discharge he has been in and out of Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals and has been placed on medication. When he recently got out of the hospital and his medication had been changed, he realized and remembered that he had been in the Army and the injustice that was done to him.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Boston, Massachusetts, on 9 January 1980, for a period of 3 years, training as a unit supply specialist and assignment under the 18-Month European Enlistment Option. He completed his basic combat training at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and was transferred to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT).
On 4 April 1980, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for the wrongful possession of marijuana. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and correctional custody for 7 days.
He completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 20 May 1980. On 29 August 1980, NJP was imposed against him for being drunk on duty. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.
He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 4 May 1981 and departed Germany on 28 November 1981, for assignment to Fort Riley, Kansas.
On 28 April 1982, NJP was imposed against him for being disrespectful in language towards a superior noncommissioned officer and for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
On 6 May 1982, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s continuous failure and refusal to follow orders, poor appearance and attitude, his lack of maturity to accept responsibility and conduct himself in a professional manner, and his inability to conduct the smallest tasks without constant supervision. He advised the applicant of his rights and advised him to seek the assistance of counsel.
The applicant acknowledged the notification and indicated that he consented to the separation. He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. He also declined a separation medical examination.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate. He also directed that the applicant not be transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR).
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 14 May 1982, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31h(2), for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. He had served 2 years, 3 months and 28 days of total active service.
There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5 of that regulation provided authorization for separation for the convenience of the government. It provided, in pertinent part, for a discharge based on failure to demonstrate promotion potential and meet acceptable standards for retention. A general discharge under honorable conditions was normally issued.
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’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect, with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The type of discharge issued and the reasons therefore were appropriate given the circumstances in this case and the applicant’s otherwise undistinguished record of service.
3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they are not supported by either the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was properly informed that he was being recommended for discharge and was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel. Not only did he acknowledge that he understood his rights and the proceedings that were being initiated, he waived his right to a medical examination as well. He made his acknowledgement in writing in each instance and the Board has no evidence to suggest that he did not understand what he was signing at the 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
___md __ __jhl____ __reb____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002072953 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/19 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1982/05/14 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH5 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | FAIL TO MAINTAIN ACCEPT STAND |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 360 | 144.0000/ADM DISC |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080923C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 30 January 1974 and on 25 February 1974, he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on the expiration of his term of service (ETS). 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 | CY2001 | 2001066027C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The available records do not contain any evidence that indicates he was ever coerced and he has provided no evidence to the contrary. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001066027SUFFIXRECONYYYYMMDDDATE BOARDED20020521TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19800627DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200 DISCHARGE REASONA60.00BOARD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004470C070205
He states that both he and the NCO were questioned at length, and that although he was threatened with court-martial and told that he would not be charged if he would be a witness for the United States against the NCO, he chose to exercise his constitutional right by not providing any information against the NCO. He states that he was a young and impressionable Soldier serving in the pay grade of E-2 trying to do a favor for an NCO; that the contraband was a non-controlled substance; that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008747
On 2 June 1982, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. On 15 June 1982, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. ____________x_____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071492C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) that resulted in a loss of rank, extra duty and a transfer to the motor pool. Otherwise, a commander was required to separate soldiers under other provisions of the regulation, which in most cases resulted in an other than honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011366
A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Since the applicant's record of service included three nonjudicial punishments, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011896
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 January 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110011896 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. __________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 | CY2003 | 2003090926C070212
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. Evidence of record shows the applicant waived his right to consult with counsel prior to his discharge. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018387
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge. He concludes by requesting an upgrade of his discharge based on his overall record of service. The fact that the VA has determined that his service from 21 May 1976 to 20 May 1980 is considered as honorable for VA purposes is not a sufficient basis for upgrading his discharge when considering the nature of his offenses and that fact that at the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011398
At the time of the applicants separation an honorable or general discharge was authorized. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was provided with multiple opportunities to overcome his drug and alcohol problems, including reclassification, counseling, rehabilitative transfer, and enrollment in the ADAPCP. Based on his record of indiscipline which included two instances of Article 15, a bar to reenlistment, PRP disqualification, and ADAPCP failure, the applicant's service...