| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the narrative reason for her discharge be changed and that her discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she was depressed due to personal issues, that she had been in counseling for two years and still could not adjust.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 13 October 1997 at age 17. She completed training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 91Q (Pharmacy Specialist).
There is no evidence of any problems in her record until she received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for dereliction of duty and assault on 26 January 2000.
On 18 February 2000, she received NJP for absence from her appointed place of duty.
She received a third NJP, on 22 June 2000, for absence from her appointed place of duty, signing a false official document; possession, with intent to deceive, of another's military identification card; use with intent to deceive, of another's military identification card, and use of a false military identification card.
On 23 October 2000, her unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation actions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct. She was advised of her rights and after consulting military counsel, waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving not less than a general discharge. She did not submit a statement on her own behalf.
On 20 November 2000, the discharge authority accepted the recommendation for discharge, waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that she be discharged with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12B, for a pattern of misconduct.
The applicant was discharged on 1 December 2000 with 3 years, 1 month and 16 days of creditable service.
On 28 June 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board, by unanimous decision, voted not to afford the applicant any relief.
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.
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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
2. 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.
3. 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.
| CASE ID | AR2002075260 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020730 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067114C070402
The separation action was approved by the appropriate separation authority, who directed that the applicant receive a GD, and on 23 December 1998, the applicant was discharged accordingly. On 14 January 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request for a change to the narrative reason for his separation and for an upgrade of the character of his discharge. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003416C070208
On 25 August 1997, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation. On 19 September 1997, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. There is evidence of record to show the applicant had back and knee problems and was a holdover at AIT because she could not pass the Army Physical Fitness Test.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064106C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Around March 2000, the applicant’s commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for pattern of misconduct. On 16 May 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060012042
The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicants military records during the period of enlistment under review and the issue he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062575C070421
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, in this case, the Board finds the evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060014806
Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 940418 Discharge Received: Date: 940516 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: U.S. Army Personnel Center (USARPERCEN) St. Loius, MO 63132 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. On 21 April 1994, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under...
ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999025282
Evidence of record shows that on 7 February 1996, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter l4, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—patterns of misconduct, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005089C070208
On 6 March 2003, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation for consideration of a discharge due to a personality disorder. On the same date, the applicant was issued a temporary Physical Profile due to adjustment disorder/personality disorder. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0601193
After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS (20050817) SJA review (date): (20050907)Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING GENERAL, MARINE AIR GROUND TASK FORCE TRAINING (20050907)Narrative Reason directed: Characterization...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050007295C070206
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by changing the reason for his separation. On 1 December 2003, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, because of misconduct, commission of a serious offense. On 24 December 2003, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for misconduct, and was issued a general...