| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was told that he was being separated from the service under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, with an honorable discharge. However, when he arrived at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, he was informed that he was being separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14. He further states that he did not want to get out of the Army and requested that he be given correctional custody and a 6-week training program instead, because he was just a kid screwing up. He also states that many young men get involved with hashish and many were offered some type of help; however, he was never offered any help with his problem. He continues by stating that he made many mistakes while in the Army and has endeavored to correct them over the years. He became a chef and is now a licensed real estate agent. He has a son in the Army and is making sure he does not repeat his (the applicant’s) mistakes. He also states that it is his desire to obtain understanding from the Board and he requests that he be afforded the benefits that are attributed to an honorable discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records, though somewhat incomplete, show:
He was born on 29 November 1961 and enlisted in Phoenix, Arizona, on 25 March 1980, for a period of 3 years, training as a food service specialist and assignment to Europe. He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 29 July 1980.
He was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 27 September 1980 and nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him on 18 February 1981, for the wrongful possession, transfer and sale of marijuana in hashish form and the wrongful possession of drug paraphernalia. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay and correctional custody for 20 days.
Although the specifics are not present in the available records, his records indicate that NJP was imposed against him on 5 February 1982 and again on 30 March 1982, for multiple specifications of failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment for this NJP was a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
On 3 May 1982, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service for misconduct, based on his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. He was advised of his rights and further advised to seek the assistance of counsel.
On 13 May 1982, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions.
Accordingly, the applicant departed Germany on 20 May 1982 and was transferred to Fort Jackson for separation. He was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 21 May 1982, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, based on his involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. He had served 2 years, 1 month and 27 days of total active service.
He applied to the Army Discharge review Board (ADRB) on 1 May 1996, requesting that his discharge be upgraded. He offered no evidence or argument to support his request for an upgrade and the ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable under the circumstances. The ADRB voted unanimously to deny his request on 19 February 1997.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 established the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for various types of misconduct that included frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. It provided that action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.
Chapter 13 of that regulation provided for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsatisfactory performance. An honorable or general discharge was required for separation under that chapter.
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 was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.
3. The applicant’s contention that he was led to believe that he was being separated under chapter 13 has been noted by the Board. However, the available evidence of record clearly states that he was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for separation under chapter 14 for misconduct. Based on the available facts and circumstances, it does not appear that the applicant was eligible for separation under chapter 13.
4. The Board commends the applicant for his post-service accomplishments. However, given the lack of evidence to show error or injustice in his case, his accomplishments are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of a duly constituted discharge, when compared to his undistinguished record of service.
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
__kwl ___ ___dh___ ___ao___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002074133 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/24 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1982/05/21 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | MISCONDUCT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 626 | 144.6000/A60.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008699
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 18 February 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b, due to misconduct for frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. He failed to appear before that board and his case was reviewed based on the evidence and argument previously submitted with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004137C070205
Thomas Ray | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The request indicated that the applicant alleged that he had served in the Army from 1980 to 1982 and that he had received a general discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002994
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 13 May 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 due to misconduct based on his involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities and an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013890C071029
The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice that occurred on 15 September 1982, the date she was notified by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) it had determined, based on her military records and all other available evidence, she had been properly discharged. On 29 October 1980, the applicant's unit commander notified her he was recommending that she be discharged from the Army under the provision of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, chapter 14. On 25 November...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088025C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 22 January 1982, the applicant's commander at the Retraining Brigade submitted a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017348
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant states, in effect, that he received an UOTHC discharge for misconduct. The applicant's contentions and additional statement were considered; however, they do not support or provide a basis to upgrade his UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008490
On 24 April 1980, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, paragraph 14-33 for misconduct - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. On 16 May 1980, the applicant was accordingly discharged. ___________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011289
He adds that his health problems started when he was stationed in Germany. A review of the ADRB record of proceedings shows the commander initiated administrative separation action against the applicant based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature and that the applicant waived his rights during the separation process. The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because he was young, he should have only received three "Article 15s" (not five), and he was not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009061
On 9 January 1980, the company commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action to effect his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), chapter 14 (Misconduct), paragraph 14-33b(1), based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. On 29 January 1980, the battalion commander provided the separation authority in the applicant's case with a summary of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000278C071108
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded due to his mental health. Further, the applicant failed to provide evidence that his conduct since his discharge has been so meritorious as to warrant an upgrade of his discharge as a matter of equity. Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in this case when his case was last reviewed by the ADRB on 4 March 1982; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for...