| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to fully honorable and that the narrative reason for his discharge be changed from misconduct.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that it has been 10 years since he was discharged. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 March 1988 for 4 years. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).
Between 7 November 1990 and 20 February 1991, the applicant was counseled on four occasions for failure to repair.
On 8 March 1991, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment was a reduction to Private First Class, E-3, a forfeiture of $216.00 pay (both suspended) until 5 June 1991, and 14 days extra duty. The suspension was vacated as he was absent without leave (AWOL) from 14 to on or about 22 May 1991.
On 10 July 1991, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL from 14 May to on or about 22 May 1991. His punishment was a reduction to Private, E-2, a forfeiture of $197.00 pay, restriction for 14 days, and extra duty for 14 days.
On 10 June 1991, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. He was found to have the mental capability to understand and participate in proceedings and to be mentally responsible. It was noted that the brief mental status evaluation did not suggest the presence of a psychotic thought process or major affective disorder and formal psychological evaluation was not indicated at that time. He was cleared for administrative actions as deemed appropriate by his command.
On 20 June 1991, the applicant completed a separation physical. He was found to be qualified for separation.
On 19 July 1991, the applicant’s commander recommended he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct – commission of a serious offense (AWOL and failure to repair).
On 19 July 1991, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action. He elected not to submit a statement on his behalf.
On 30 July 1991, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.
On 13 August 1991, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct - commission of a serious offense. He had completed 3 years, 4 months, and 15 days of creditable active service and had 14 days of lost time.
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. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed and an unfit medical condition is not the direct or substantial contributing cause of his misconduct. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.
On 19 May 1995, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge but changed the narrative reason for his discharge from misconduct - commission of a serious offense to misconduct (under current standards).
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. 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 indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. It is acknowledged that the first two and one-half years of the applicant's four-year enlistment appear to have been free of misconduct; however, considering his two Article 15s and his other infractions of military discipline, though minor, the characterization of his discharge as general was appropriate.
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
__RJW__ __RWA__ __JTM__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075992 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/10 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1991/08/13 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021360
On 5 August 1991, he was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200, and his service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general). Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Therefore, his age and immaturity at the time of his offenses are insufficient reasons to overcome his record of indiscipline which included two incidents of assault and one incident of failing to repair (incorrectly...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059592C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 8 April 1992, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017524
On 23 March 1992, the applicants immediate commander initiated a Bar to Reenlistment Certificate against the applicant citing his two instances of nonjudicial punishment, civilian DWI conviction, and history of counseling. There is no evidence in the applicant's record, and the applicant did not provide substantiating evidence, that shows he suffered from shock before, during, or subsequent to his service in the war (presumably Southwest Asia). The evidence of record shows that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014274
On 12 November 1991, the unit commander recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 by reason of commission of a serious offense with the issuance of a general discharge, under honorable conditions. The regulation shows that the separation program designator JKQ as shown on the applicants DD Form 214 specifies the narrative reason for discharge as Misconduct-Commission of a Serious Offense and that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065388C070421
On 11 March 1992, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct. On 11 March 1992, the unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (pattern of misconduct). On 12 November 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020846
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 23 January 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct commission of a serious offense. __________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 | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019070
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. On 24 April 1991, the separation authority approved the discharge action under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed that the applicant be separated with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017042
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 March 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070017042 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The DD Form 214 that he was furnished shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130012234
The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates on 23 November 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense for being absent without leave (AWOL) for an extended period of time. The separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070314C070402
On 28 May 1991, the applicant was notified that a board of officers would convene on 18 June 1991 to determine whether he should be separated from the AGR program and released from active duty for misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 due to being AWOL and use of an illegal drug. Army policy states that a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.The separation code "JKQ"...