| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded so that he can utilize his G.I. Bill benefits.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Syracuse, New York, on 26 November 1989, for a period of 4 years, training as an infantryman, assignment to the 10th Mountain Division and a cash enlistment bonus. He completed his training at Fort Benning, Georgia, and was transferred to Fort Drum, New York, on 12 March 1990. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 February 1992.
On 4 June 1993, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to bar the applicant from reenlistment. He cited as the basis for his recommendation, that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on two occasions, once for drunk driving and once for being absent without leave and that he had multiple incidents of indebtedness. He further indicated that the applicant had been caught driving drunk twice and had been involved in numerous less serious incidents since he had arrived in the unit. The applicant declined the opportunity to submit a statement in his own behalf and the appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on the same day.
On 4 August 1993, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. He recommended that the applicant be separated under honorable conditions. After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf; however, the statement is not present in the available records.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 30 August 1993 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 9 September 1993, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. He had served 3 years, 9 months and 14 days of total active service.
On 12 March 2002, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. He contended at that time that his discharge was inequitable because he was going through depression, had family problems and he had a serious drinking problem. He further stated that he should have received some help, instead of being discharged and contends that he should have received an honorable discharge because he only had a short amount of time remaining on his contract.
After reviewing the evidence of record, the ADRB opined that notwithstanding the applicant’s contention of being inequitably discharged, he had numerous counseling statements in his records for failure to go to his place of duty, missing formations, assault, indebtedness, and driving under the influence. These counseling statements, coupled with his disciplinary record and bar to reenlistment, clearly indicate that his service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty. The ADRB denied his request for an upgrade on 5 June 2002.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct. Specific categories include minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
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 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.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__jm ____ ___tsk __ __hbo___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002074156 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/11 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1993/09/09 |
| 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 | CY2009 | 20090012459
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 1 April 1993, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b and 12c, by reason of patterns of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. The DD Form 214 the applicant was issued upon his discharge on 28 May 1993 shows he was separated under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063153C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The ADRB determined that his discharge and the reasons therefore were proper and unanimously denied his request on 15 November 1996. The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130000914
Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 March 2000, for a period of 4 years. On 30 April 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of pattern of misconduct; specifically for: a. receiving a Field Grade Article 15 (030415, which was the date the appeal was denied), for wrongfully operating a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012466
On 27 January 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. ____________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 | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130022386
On 12 January 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. On 1 February 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. He stated it took six months before his punishment was imposed.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130009979
The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates that on 28 September 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct, specifically for driving while impaired, disrespecting a noncommissioned officer, disorderly conduct, and receiving a summarized Article 15 (020717) for disorderly conduct. In an undated memorandum, the separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110025233
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge. On 11 April 1994, he was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct (patterns of misconduct). On 30 December 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an honorable discharge.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130008904
IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 15 July 2013 CASE NUMBER: AR20130008904 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicants length and...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130002950
Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 4 March 2002 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b, JKA RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HQ/A Btry, 3rd Bn, 6th ADA Bde, Fort Bliss, TX f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 21 August 2000, 3 years (according to ERB) g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 6 months, 14 days h. Total Service: 1 year, 6 months, 14 days i. On 27 February 2002, the separation authority waived further...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130005493
On 18 January 2000, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions and did not submit a statement on his behalf. On 7 February 2000, the separation authority approved the conditional waiver request, waived further rehabilitation and directed the...