| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Mr. Conrad V. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That his discharge was inequitable because it was based upon one isolated incident in 15 months of service. He had no other adverse action.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 3 January 1986. He completed training and was assigned to a troop command at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.
The applicant was counseled on 29 September 1986 because of his unsatisfactory appearance. He was counseled on 16 October 1986 for his unsatisfactory performance of duty. The applicant was counseled on 5 November 1986 for his consistent use of foul language in the presence of his supervisor, a female civilian. He was counseled on 12 December 1986 for his lackadaisical attitude and for not doing his work.
On 23 January 1987 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to go to his place of duty.
The applicant was counseled on 24 February 1987 for using profanity in the work area.
A 4 March 1987 incident report indicates that the applicant was arrested for shoplifting at a department store. He was confined by civilian authorities. He was returned to duty on 5 March 1987.
On 10 March 1987 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for using indecent language
On 10 March 1987 the applicant’s commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him from the Army for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.
The applicant consulted with counsel and stated that he understood the basis for the contemplated action, its effects, the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the general discharge that he might receive. He submitted a statement to the effect that he did not do enough to get other than an honorable discharge, and that he did not get busted for drugs or disobey a direct order. He was not a super soldier, but he did things that helped the company. He tried to be motivated. He was turned down when he requested airborne and air assault school, hurting his morale. He stated that charges were not strong and the counseling statements were very weak. He stated that he knew the shoplifting charge was true, but that everyone makes mistakes. He stated that if he could not get out of his company, he wanted to get out of the Army. He stated that his work performance was very good.
A 23 March 1987 report of medical examination shows that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 1 1. In the report of medical history he furnished for the examination, the applicant stated that he was in good health.
On 23 March 1987 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be eliminated from the Army for acts or patterns of misconduct. On 30 March 1987 the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant receive a General Discharge Certificate.
The applicant was discharged on 7 April 1987 for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a. He had 1 year, 3 months, and 5 days of service.
In an unanimous opinion, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. He was so notified on 4 June 1998.
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. Paragraph 14-12a states that soldiers are subject to separation for a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. Paragraph 14-3 states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged for misconduct. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.
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 indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
2. The applicant’s contention that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident is not borne out by the evidence of record.
3. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.
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 that 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
__CLA __ __TSK_ _ __CVM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077120 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021210 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007142
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his time in service to show he completed 2 years of net active service and/or an upgrade of his general discharge. On 20 January 1989, the applicant's company commander notified the applicant that action was being initiated to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel SeparationsEnlisted Separation), paragraph 14-12b for pattern of misconduct with a general discharge. There is no evidence he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018634
Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 10 December 1985, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. On 3 February 1987, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12c, for misconduct, commission of a serious offense, based on his use of illegal drugs. On 13 May 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000040
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 May 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070000040 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. Member Mr. James R. Hastie Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 18 March 1987, the applicants commander recommended that he be separated from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003972
On 28 January 1986, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him violating a lawful general regulation by operating a government vehicle at an excessive speed. He enlisted in the NYARNG on 7 April 1994 for a period of 3 years and on 9 November 1995, he was granted a waiver to remain in the NYARNG after it was determined that his enlistment was fraudulent because he had concealed his arrest record. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006655
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Evidence shows he enlisted in the RA on 11 July 1986 which is properly shown in item 12a of his DD Form 214. His record of service included one NJP, one summary court-martial conviction, adverse counseling statements, and 2 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013784
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 March 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140013784 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Although the specific facts and circumstances are not available it is evident that the applicant submitted an appeal to the Article 15. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03695
The discharge authority approved the separation and directed that applicant be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without P&R. Items 11, 10 and 9 had to do with reading the newspaper on duty. Prior to being under Sergeant Z---‘s command, he enjoyed the military and working with patients, which he still does today.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013088C071029
His disciplinary history includes his acceptance of non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on three separate occasions. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for members separated under these provisions of the regulation. The separation authority may authorize a GD or HD if warranted based on the members overall record of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000968
She enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 June 1985 at 17 years of age for a period of 4 years. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. The applicant's record of service included adverse counseling statements and four nonjudicial punishments.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9207280
The applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation for the applicant’s separation under chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200. The applicant’s commander testified that an Army Regulation 15-6 was done because of rumors of the applicant’s involvement with another woman, but there was no proof of misconduct; that the applicant was command directed to “D&A (drug and alcohol)” on 29 May 1987; that the applicant told him on 8 May 1987 that he had already been scheduled for an appointment; that...