| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That his discharge was based on his failure to lose weight and the accusation that he was coming to work intoxicated.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 28 July 1992, for a period of 4 years and training as a veterinary food inspection specialist. He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Eustis, Virginia, on 28 December 1992. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 28 January 1993.
In February 1993, he began to receive counseling from his supervisor for writing bad checks and was informed that his identification card would be over-stamped if the activity occurred again.
On 10 February 1993, his chain of command supported the applicant’s request for an Army Emergency Relief (AER) loan and directed him to enroll in the Army Community Services financial management class.
He was counseled on 26 February 1993, regarding his work being incomplete and not being assigned to the night shift until such time as he became better trained and proficient in his duties.
He was counseled on 5 March 1993, for being overweight and on 26 March 1993, for being involved in a domestic dispute with his wife, which resulted in him being placed in the barracks and enrolled in the Family Advocacy Council (FAC) Program.
He was counseled on 9 April 1993, for failing the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and for missing two appointments with the FAC counselor. He was counseled again on 21 April 1993, for not being at work on time and on 29 April 1993, for failing the APFT and being enrolled in a special physical training program.
He continued to be counseled from 7 May 1993 through August 1993 for his failure to report as directed, failure to go to his place of duty, failure to pay debts, dishonored checks, entry into the weight control program, physical fitness failures, his failure to show up for scheduled appointments, fighting, domestic disputes and showing up for work in an intoxicated state.
He was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program on 26 July 1993.
On 29 November 1993, the applicant was command referred for a mental status evaluation and was deemed to be mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong.
On 30 November 1993, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being absent from his place of duty and for being derelict in the performance of his duties. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, extra duty and an oral reprimand. He did not appeal the punishment.
On 15 December 1993, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s poor duty performance, failure to report, repeated alleged spouse abuse, his entry into the weight control program, letters of indebtedness, and previous alcohol related incidents.
After consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 13 January 1994, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. He had served 1 year, 5 months and 16 days of total active service.
On 22 January 2002, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. He contended that his discharge was inequitable because the incidents that served as the basis for his discharge were minor and did not warrant his discharge, and especially nothing less than an honorable discharge. He further stated that he had been a model citizen in the community working as a drill instructor with a local boot camp for troubled youths. The ADRB determined that the quality of his service was diminished by the disruptive nature of his offenses and the time the command dedicated to resolving his problems. Accordingly, his discharge was appropriate because his conduct was not consistent with the Army’s standards for military personnel. The ADRB voted unanimously to deny his application on 10 July 2002.
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsatisfactory performance and who were unsuitable for further military service. An individual could be separated for unsatisfactory performance if it was determined that the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, an honorable discharge may be issued in meritorious cases.
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 applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.
3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board. However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his misconduct and his otherwise undistinguished record of service during such a short period of time.
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
___mvt__ ___jhl ___ __rtd____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076077 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/17 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1994/01/13 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR2002076077 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | UNSAT PERF |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 730 | 144.7800/A78.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013808
Counsel further states that as a result of the applicant's failure to pass the APFT, the Superintendent of the USMA recommended that he be separated from the academy, be discharged from the United States Army, and repay the costs of his education. He has given everything he had to the USMA. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. graduating him from the December 2004 class and awarding him the Bachelor of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012500
He goes on to state that his issues are: a. that his procedural due process rights were violated when the professor of military science (PMS) failed to provide him with a true and correct copy of the Record of Proceedings, the re-submitted disenrollment packet, and a list of the exhibits being used against him; b. that his disenrollment was unfair, unjust, and based on a factually and legally deficient disenrollment packet caused by the IO failing to summarize the testimony of himself and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009460
On 15 September 1992 he was counseled regarding his two consecutive APFT failures and notified that separation procedures would be initiated to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012997
His records contains a request for elimination packet, dated 17 February 1993, which shows his commander consulted with the Staff Judge Advocate/Legal Services Center, requested an elimination packet, and recommended the applicant be separated in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 (Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance). The evidence of record shows the applicant underwent two surgeries and was given periods of convalescent...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011234C070208
The applicant’s cadet records are not available to the Board. Gears failed to complete the period of active duty specified in his Agreement with the Navy. Had the applicant maintained the Army's weight standard, it could be argued he would have passed the 2-mile run event.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010643
The applicant requests that his discharge, under honorable conditions, be upgraded to honorable. On 1 March 1994, the applicants commander recommended that he be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance, based on two APFT failures. The evidence of record clearly shows the applicant was counseled on several occasions concerning his APFT failures and overweight condition.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002322
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge and his records corrected to show he served 24 months of active service. On 6 May 1993, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), for unsatisfactory performance and failure to attain basic competencies required of a professional Soldier. The applicant did not submit...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019706
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's 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. Chapter 13 provides for the separation of a Soldier when it is determined that he/she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance. The applicant's records show he was discharged for failing to pass two...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011971C070206
The applicant requests that his general discharge due to unsatisfactory performance be upgraded to an honorable discharge by reason of physical disability. The documents provided by the applicant show that as of 14 June 2005, the applicant is rated by the VA as being as 80% disabled and for VA purposes is considered 100% totally disabled. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063016C070421
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it would have recommended...