| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he is presently living in Denver, Colorado, and the father of four young men. He has taught them to respect people of authority and hopes that they do not make the same decisions he made in life. Hopefully if his discharge is upgraded or not, it would show his boys to take responsibility for their actions all the time. He also would like to receive a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Army Reserve for 7 years, in pay grade E-1, on 7 August 1987.
He enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-2, on 17 August 1987 and completed basic and advanced training and was assigned military occupational specialty 11B10, Infantryman.
On 12 April 1988, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for participating in a breach of peace by wrongfully wrestling with another soldier. His punishment included 14 days extra duty and 14 days restriction.
He was advanced to specialist, pay grade E-4, on 1 December 1988.
On 17 January 1989, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for violation of a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully transferring of tax-free merchandise, a car stereo. His punishment included forfeiture of pay for 1 month and 14 days extra duty.
On 10 March 1989, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for being on post as a sentinel at the guardhouse and leaving his post before he was regularly relieved. His punishment included reduction to private first class, pay grade
E-3, forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
On 7 June 1989, he was charged with 1 specification of abandoning guard duty, 1 specification of leaving his weapon & arms room keys unsecured (dereliction) and 1 specification of breaking restriction and referred to a summary court-martial. On 5 July 1989, he was found guilty by summary court-martial of all the charges and sentenced to reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $466.00 and confinement at hard labor for 20 days. The sentence was approved on 18 July 1989.
On 11 August 1989, the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate finalized the sentence. The applicant was provided a copy of this review.
On 12 August 1989, his commander initiated action to separate him from the service for commission of a serious offense. The commander stated that the reason for the proposed action was the applicant’s conviction by summary court-martial and his record of 3 previous Article 15’s.
On 23 August 1989, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation action. Through counsel he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. The applicant also acknowledged the rights available to him, the effect of any action taken by him waiving his rights and what he may expect as the result of issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
On 12 September 1989, the appropriate authority approved his discharge and directed that a General Discharge Certificate be furnished.
He was separated on 26 September 1989 in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct – commission of a serious offense. He was issued a General Discharge Certificate. He was credited with 2 years, 1 month and 10 days total active service.
On 21 June 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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, and 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.
Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation 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. In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2. The Board notes the applicant’s contentions that he is the father of four and he has taught them to respect people of authority and hopes that they do not make the same decisions he made in life. However, the applicant’s charges and conviction by summary court-martial outline his misconduct. He was properly recommended for discharge for this misconduct, and properly discharged.
3. While the Board has taken cognizance of how he is raising his sons and the fact that he made the wrong decisions in life, these factors do not warrant the relief requested.
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
_KWL___ _DPH___ _AAO___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002074743 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020924 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A70 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066407C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Effective 11 June 1985, the applicant was separated under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct. The Board notes that the applicant was over 21 years of age at the time of his first drug offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071033C070402
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 1 February 1983 and on 24 March 1983, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer. However, pursuant to his plea agreement, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence of 45 days confinement at hard labor and a forfeiture of pay.
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 | CY2006 | 20060015891
On 13 February 1990, the battalion commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general discharge under honorable conditions. There is no evidence showing the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board requesting a change regarding the reason or character of service of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. During the period of service under review (i.e., from 6 October 1987 to 22 February 1990), the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006785
The applicant requests upgrade of his bad conduct discharge (BCD) to a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. The applicant's court-martial conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws...
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090007739
Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 19 November 2007 , the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for being found drunk on duty and have had numerous counseling for unsatisfactory performance with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. By the unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076770C070215
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: Army Regulation 601-210 serves as the authority for the issuance of RE codes.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003874
The applicant requests that his narrative reason for separation (Misconduct Commission of a Serious Offense) be removed from his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). On 6 January 1989, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12c, for misconduct commission of a serious offense. Accordingly, on 1 February 1989, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002742
His record is void of the complete facts and circumstances of his discharge; however, his records contain a DD Form 214 showing he was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 4 October 1990, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Administrative Personnel Separations), chapter 3, As a result of court-martial, with a bad conduct discharge. The applicant was convicted by a general court-martial and was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge. His discharge was...
NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00057
ND00-00057 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991013, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).In response to applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined that to...