| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Walter Avery, Jr. | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Ms. Margaret V. Thompson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, his reinstatement to active duty.
APPLICANT STATES: He defers to counsel.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: That on 11 June 2002 an administrative board recommended the applicant’s separation from the Army with a General Discharge. The basis for that recommendation was an assault on 22 August 2001 by the applicant upon his wife and concealment of arrest records by civil authorities for two prior assaults on his wife, which resulted in false statements on his reenlistment documents submitted on 1 June 2001. The separation board recommended that any separation of the applicant be suspended for six months. The convening authority chose to ignore this recommendation and abused its discretion by denying the recommendation.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 10 July 1990 for training as a supply specialist. He achieved the rank of sergeant first class and served continuously until his discharge.
The applicant’s records reflect that his job performance was excellent and contains no evidence of disciplinary actions.
On 27 February 2002, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. The applicant failed to disclose two arrests for assault and battery against his wife on 11 July 2000 and 10 October 2000 during his reenlistment process on 1 June 2001. In addition, he failed to disclose that on or about 22 August 2001 he again assaulted his wife. The commander recommended the applicant’s discharge from the service based on commission of a serious offense. The applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf, after advisement of his rights and consultation with counsel.
On 11 June 2002, the applicant appeared before an administrative separation board. In summary it was disclosed that he had twice been convicted for spousal abuse. He had been placed on probation and sentenced to 25 hours of anger management training. He falsely informed the instructor that he was being deployed and stopped going to the classes. During this time he reenlisted and did not disclose his arrest, conviction or that he was on probation. The applicant was involved in a third spousal abuse that involved his wife receiving a serious beating and the 12-year-old stepdaughter attacking the applicant in defense of her mother. The last incident resulted in the disclosure of the previous events and his appearance before the board. The separation board recommended the applicant’s separation from Army with a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions and that the separation be suspended for six months per paragraph
1-18 of AR 635-200.
On 26 June 2002, the appropriate authority directed the discharge of the applicant with the least practical delay and that he receive a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, his under honorable conditions discharge took place on 19 July 2002 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(1) for misconduct. His total active service credit was 12 years, 0 months and 10 days of total active service.
In the processing of this case the US Army Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) provided an advisory opinion. They concluded that although a separation board may recommend suspension, the convening authority is not bound to that suspension. The separation authority may not increase the severity of the directed separation but is not mandated to approve a suspension of the separation. The advisory opinion was sent to the applicant for response. None has been forthcoming.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 established the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for various types of misconduct. It provided that action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. Although a general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.
Chapter 1-18 of the same regulation provides that a highly deserving soldier may be given a probation period to show successful rehabilitation before the soldier’s enlistment or obligated service expires. The separation authority may vacate suspension of the approved action and execute separation, or continue to suspend execution of the approved separation for the remainder of the probation period.
Chapter 2-12 of the same regulation provides that the board’s recommendation of suspension is not binding on the separation authority.
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 was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.
3. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the convening authority abused its discretion by not accepting the separation board’s recommendation to suspend his separation. The fact that the separation board issues a “recommendation” is indicative that the final decision rests with another authority, in this instance the separation authority. The separation authority was within regulatory guidance by not accepting the recommendation of a suspension. It is also noted that the applicant was administratively separated and not subjected to nonjudicial or court-martial proceedings.
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
___jlp__ ___mvt __ ___aao__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076579 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020318 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | MISCONDUCT |
| BOARD DECISION | |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 626 | 144.6000/A60.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073313C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 4 January 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The approving authority granted the applicant leniency upon his discharge from the Regular Army when his reason for separation was changed from misconduct-spouse abuse to misconduct-pattern of misconduct.
USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01205
MD02-01205 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020823, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed. The Board will determine which reason for discharge should have been assigned based upon the facts and circumstances before the Board, including the service regulations governing the reasons for discharge at that time, to determine whether relief is warranted. Applicant was...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2012-003
The Recorder provided the applicant with the exhibits he intended to submit and a list of 22 witnesses who were to testify regarding “drug abuse, discreditable involvement with civil authorities, sexual perversion, and abuse of family member.” The exhibits included extracts of the Personnel Manual, photographs of bruises on the applicant’s wife and daughter and of the applicant performing at a bachelorette party, the applicant’s PDR, a CGIS report of an investiga- tion into the applicant’s...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050014639C070206
An ROTC Cadet Command Form 131-R (Cadet Action Request) was prepared on 8 March 2002 requesting the applicant be given a waiver for civil conviction. An NGB memorandum dated 10 November 2005 indicates she was granted a civil conviction waiver, apparently for appointment as an officer. During the applicant’s disenrollment board, the recorder noted the applicant had the responsibility for personally initiating any request for waiver of enrollment eligibility requirements.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005258
The Statement of Reasons indicates that during an investigative interview on 24 March 2001 and 6 April 2001, in a sworn statement, the applicant disclosed that when he completed his VA State Police Application he forgot to list his arrest for assault on a policeman in April 1981 and operating a pyramid in March 1994. The senior rater stated that he notified the applicant of the reasons for the relief telephonically and by memorandum and that he also advised him of the Officer Evaluation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010756
The Chief, Investigations Division (ID), United States Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility, notified the applicant on 8 January 2002, of his intent to revoke his security clearance. The rater stated once he was assigned and mobilized on 8 December 2001, the USJFCOM initiated the security management process and that the United States Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility announced their intent to revoke his security clearance on 8 January 2002. His records show...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078194C070215
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 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081048C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He was sentenced to 3 years probation on the breaking and entering offense. However, there is no evidence to show that the applicant would have been granted a waiver and no reason to believe that he would have been.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010007
He was sentenced to 4 years for violating the conditions of probation. After the 35B hearing, the applicant was sentenced to 5 years of Intensive Supervision Program. His sentence to 4 years confinement was set aside. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130010007 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130010007 10 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000860C071029
Army Regulation 635-40 also states, in pertinent part, that an enlisted Soldier may not be referred for, or continue, physical disability processing when action has been started under any regulatory provision which authorizes a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions unless the general court-martial convening authority finds that the disability is the cause, or a substantial contributing cause, of the misconduct that might result in a discharge under other...