| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his command failed him by not allowing emergency leave when he heard his grandmother was dying of cancer. He went AWOL (absent without leave) to see her. Later, the Red Cross verified the emergency and he was allowed to go on leave. Upon her passing, he was not allowed adequate time to mourn.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 27 November 1995, the applicant enlisted in the Army for 4 years. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 45K (Armament Repairer).
During the period 2 October 1996 to 12 February 1997, the applicant was formally counseled on 9 occasions for disobeying lawful orders, for his failure to follow instructions, for his failure to go to his appointed place of duty and for his failure to shave.
On 7 April 1997, he was convicted by a Summary Court-Martial of being AWOL for the period 3 to 29 March 1997; his failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 31 March 1997; and his willful disobedience of lawful orders on 22 January and 12 February 1997. His sentence included a reduction to pay grade E-1 and confinement for 12 days.
On 7 May 1997, a physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.
On 27 June 1997, a mental status evaluation cleared the applicant for separation.
On 21 October 1997, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for making a false official statement on 12 August 1997; disobeying a lawful order on 13 August 1997; and for his failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 9 and 10 August 1997. His punishment was 14 days extra duty.
On 12 November 1997, 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. The applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the impact of the discharge action. He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 2 December 1997, the appropriate separation authority approved the discharge and directed reduction to pay grade E-1.
On 10 December 1997, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the above-cited regulation with a discharge under honorable conditions. His separation document indicates he had 1 year, 11 months and 18 days of creditable service and 26 days of lost time.
On 2 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 fully 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. His contentions have been noted; however, 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.
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
_LEM___ __TSK___ __FNE___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073320 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020813 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003730
The applicant requests correction of item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show that he was discharged for medical reasons rather than a "Personality disorder." The applicant states, in effect, that he was discharged due to a medical condition in his left knee. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007375
On 2 April 2009, the unit commander notified the applicant of the proposed recommendation to discharge him under honorable conditions (general) for commission of a serious offense under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for willfully disobeying a lawful command from a lieutenant colonel (LTC) on 7 and 31 January 2009, failing to go to formation and draw weapons for deployment on 7 January 2009, missing movement to Afghanistan, and leaving his appointed place of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069260C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The specific reason for the Article 15 is not in the file but was related to violating suspended driving privileges. On 14 March 1997, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to separate the applicant for a pattern of misconduct under paragraph 14-12b, Army Regulation 635-200.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002789C070206
The battalion commander recommended that the applicant be separated with an UOTHC discharge because his service had been less than honorable. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that on 25 February 1981, he was separated with an UOTHC discharge under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct-frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061328C070421
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: Therefore, even if he had sought and received treatment for alcoholism while he was in the service, it would not have prevented his command from preferring charges against him for the offenses which formed the basis for his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005544
On 11 October 2007, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 14-12(b) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for patterns of misconduct, citing the applicants prior Article 15 for being disrespectful towards a senior NCO, constantly failing to be at his appointed place of duty, disobeying lawful orders, being disrespectful to others, lying about appointments that he did not...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130011574
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable and a change to the narrative reason. The record shows that on 16 November 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), specifically for the following offenses: a. On 21 November 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and...
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 | CY2001 | 2001062476C070421
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 15 January 1993 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (pattern of misconduct). Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the RE code issued to him was in error or unjust.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083104C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On the same date, the approval authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be separated for misconduct with a UOTHC discharge. On 20 October 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.