| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald J. Weaver | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she has changed her life spiritually and is happy now. She cites the evidence presented to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to substantiate her case.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She enlisted and entered active duty on 17 November 1994; completed training as a unit supply specialist, military occupational specialty (MOS) 92Y10; and progressed to the rank of specialist (E-4).
On 13 September 1999 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code Military Justice for stealing a combination TV/VCR worth $288.79 from the Joint Lodging Office. The regimental commander imposed punishment consisting of reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of ½ pay per month for two months and extra duty for 60 days. The applicant appealed. A legal officer, a member of the Judge Advocate General's Corps, noted that 45 days was the maximum authorized extra duty and the brigade commander suspended the forfeiture of pay until 12 March 2000 or until the applicant's ETS (the expiration of her term of service). On 19 October 1999 the suspended punishment was vacated due to the applicant's absence from her appointed place of duty.
At a 20 October 1999 mental status evaluation the applicant displayed normal behavior. She was fully alert and oriented. Her mood was unremarkable, thinking process clear, thought content normal and her memory good. In the opinion of the examiner she was mentally responsible, met retention requirements and evidenced no psychiatric disorder that would interfere with her ability to understand and participate in any administrative of judicial process. She was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate.
The company commander initiated action to separate the applicant with a general discharge for misconduct, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 because of the NJP incident and "numerous derogatory counseling statements…."
The applicant was advised of the proposed elimination, she consulted with counsel and waived her right to submit a statement in her own behalf. She also acknowledged that she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian
life and that she could apply to the ADRB and this Board but that right of application did not imply that the discharge would be upgraded. She also acknowledged that she would be prohibited from applying for reenlistment for two years.
The intermediate commanders recommended separation action and the separation authority approved the recommendation. On 10 November 1999 the applicant was separated with a general discharge for misconduct. She had 4 years, 11 months and 24 days of creditable service. Her authorized awards included the Army Achievement Medal (2nd award), the Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Humanitarian Service Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal, the Army Service Medal, the Overseas Service Medal and the Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar.
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, conviction 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.
At a 19 March 2002 ADRB hearing personal appearance, with counsel, the applicant contended that her good service outweighed the one negative incident, that the discharge was too severe and that a mental health problem contributed to the misconduct. She presented a certificate from the local police department indicating that she had no local criminal warrants. She also submitted a letter of reference from a minister who stated that the applicant was a faithful, regular attendee and a member of the choir. He indicated that he was aware of the incident that led to the applicant's discharge and believed that she had turned her life around as the result of that discharge. The ADRB denied the applicant's request to upgrade her discharge.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory, it is concluded:
1. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize her rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
2. The evidence of the applicant's post-service behavior and adjustment, as evidenced by the police report and the letter from her minister, have been noted but these factors are not so exceptionally meritorious as to warrant the requested relief.
3. 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.
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
_MHM___ __CLG__ __RJW __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002074845 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030204 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 219991110 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 ch 14 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A64.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A92.21 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003188
The applicant requests, through her Member of Congress, correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) as follows: * Item 24 (Character of Service) from "Under Honorable Conditions (General)" to "Honorable" * Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) from "Misconduct (Drug Abuse)" to "Condition - Not a Disability" or "Disability - Temporary" 2. Consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005774C070208
Counsel states that the evidence of records indicates that the applicant was treated for paranoid schizophrenia and was prescribed various medications of progressively increasing dosage and effect. In the letter dated 15 August 2000, the applicant's aunt stated that letters from the VA hospital were sent to Fort Benning, Georgia; however, there was no response until 11 August 2000, when officials informed her that the applicant should report to the nearest military hospital. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006000C070206
The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that she was discharged on 12 February 1987, under the provisions of Chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635- 200, for unsatisfactory performance, issued a General Discharge Certificate with service characterized as under honorable conditions, and given a reenlistment code of RE-3. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of her discharge. Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019059
Counsel requests reconsideration of the previous Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) decision regarding the applicant's request for an upgrade of general discharge to an honorable discharge. On 14 January 1991, the separation authority approved her discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct patterns of misconduct and directed she receive a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant's request for an upgrade of her under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019663
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records, including the authority, narrative reason, separation program designator (SPD) code, and reentry eligibility (RE) code of his administrative discharge, to show that he was discharged based on a medical finding of being physically unfit for active duty and an upgrade of the characterization of his service to honorable. It requires a Soldier being considered for administrative separation under Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000049
On 9 March 2000, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. Here, the applicant's active duty service was interrupted by her serious misconduct, not by any...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705600
The applicant requests, in effect, that her general/under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). The psychiatric recommendation was that the applicant be separated from the service under the appropriate administrative regulation (AR 635-212 6b); that retention on active duty could be expected to result in continued ineffectiveness and disciplinary infractions and that separation should be accomplished as expeditiously as possible. BOARD VOTE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005892C070205
The applicant provides copies of a 12 page Mental Health Outpatient Progress Note related to his treatment for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a statement from his wife. While PTSD has only been categorized by psychiatrists as a distinct diagnosis since 1980, it has, as early as the Civil War, been described in psychological literature, variously labeled as shell shock, Soldier's heart, effect syndrome, combat fatigue and traumatic neurosis. There is no evidence in the available...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010163
Additionally, on 23 August 2001, the applicant's immediate commander notified him that she was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12(c), for misconduct commission of a serious offense. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The applicant failed to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007076C070208
On 19 June 1981, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations). Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant presented medical evidence that shows she was treated for a miscarriage at a military medical facility after she had been given two Article 15s.