| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Member | ||
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant makes no statement and submits no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 August 1981. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 17K (Ground Surveillance Radar Crewman).
On 3 February 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for breaching the peace by engaging in a fistfight with another soldier.
On 15 May 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for operating a vehicle while drunk.
On 17 November 1984, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.
On 17 November 1984, the applicant waived consulting counsel and waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and personal appearance before such a board. It cannot be determined whether or not he elected to submit a statement in his own behalf; however, none is available.
On 26 November 1984, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. The applicant was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.
On 29 November 1984, the applicant's commander formally recommended his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. He noted the applicant's behavior had been inconsistent with the standards and requirements of the Army. Administrative actions included both informal and formal counseling. Disciplinary actions included a summarized Article 15 for breaching the peace and fighting and a field grade Article 15 for driving while intoxicated. The applicant had also been charged with possession of a controlled substance on 4 September 1984. On a separate, undated document (it cannot be determined if the document was part of the recommendation for separation or was related to the applicant's disqualification for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal), the commander had stated that the applicant had the potential to be a good soldier but allowed personal problems to interfere with his duty performance.
On 13 December 1984, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the soldier be issued a General under Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.
On 5 February 1985, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance, with a general discharge. He had completed 3 years, 6 months, and 2 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member may be separated when it is determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance. Commanders will separate a soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that, in the commander’s judgment, the soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.
Army Regulation 635-200 states that issuance of an honorable discharge certificate is predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s current enlistment with due consideration for the member’s age, length of service, grade and general aptitude. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
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 or unjust. 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. His record of disciplinary actions does not warrant a characterization of service of fully honorable.
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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_ _FNE _ __SLP__ ___EJA__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076820 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/22 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1985/02/05 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A04.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004993
The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5a(1), with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. However, the evidence of record shows that at the time of his discharge a mental evaluation was conducted that confirmed he had no significant mental illness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024132
She was of no value to the Army and should be discharged now. She was discharged in pay grade E-3 on 6 September 1984, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance, and issued a general discharge. Her discharge proceedings, for unsatisfactory performance, were conducted in accordance with law and regulations in effect at the time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008490
On 24 April 1980, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, paragraph 14-33 for misconduct - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. On 16 May 1980, the applicant was accordingly discharged. ___________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069740C070402
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. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. In pertinent part, Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090062C070212
The applicant was released from active duty under honorable conditions (General), on 23 July 1982, in the rank and pay grade, Private, E-1, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. This program applied to all Active Army personnel who had completed at least 6 months, but no more than 36 months of continuous active duty on their first enlistment in the Army, at the time the member's immediate commander formally recommended...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015002
The separation authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 and directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 20 July 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015330
On 19 March 1986, the separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, patterns of misconduct, and directed the issuance of a general discharge. Records show that the applicant was approximately 19 years of age at the time of his offenses. However, there is no evidence indicating the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who had successfully completed military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010034
Following consultation with legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if his request were approved he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. However, there is no evidence that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010444
The applicant contends, in effect, that his request for upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge should be reconsidered because the introduction of the Article 15 proceedings of nonjudicial punishment imposed against him in the COE portion of the ROP of his original request for upgrade of his discharge is inflammatory; he remained quiet with respect to his medical examination and separation processing (i.e., he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights),...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014025
On 25 October 1984, the applicant's commander notified the applicant of his intension to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-2 for unsatisfactory performance. On 26 October 1984, the applicants commander initiated a recommendation to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review...