| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Antoinette Farley | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Member | |
| Ms. Mae M. Bullock | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he was young at the time of his discharge and has had no trouble since. He adds that he has always advised youth to go in the service.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 10 March 1983, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. He completed his military training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76C (Equipment Records and Parts Specialist). He served overseas in his MOS from 17 August 1983 to 7 February 1985. He returned to the United States and was assigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia. He had been promoted to pay grade E-4 effective 1 October 1984.
On 14 August 1985, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UMCJ) for two specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of $177.00 pay and14 days extra duty. The applicant appealed the punishment, which was denied on 16 August 1985.
On 19 August 1985, the applicant received NJP for one specification of being disrespectful in deportment toward a Warrant Officer by willfully and wrongfully failing to render a proper military salute toward a commissioned officer and for disobeying a lawful order to be in proper military uniform. His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-1, suspended until 17 February 1986, forfeiture of $250 pay per month for 2 months, suspended until 18 November 1985, and
45 days of extra duty.
On 24 October 1985, a bar to reenlistment was approved, based on the applicant receiving two Article 15’s and five counseling statements, received on 3 and
12 June 1985, 7 August 1985 and 19 July 1985.
On 13 December 1985, the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. He consulted with legal counsel, was advised of his rights, and that he could receive a discharge under honorable conditions (UHC). He requested to make a statement in his own behalf, but failed to submit his request within the 15-day requirement. The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and medical examination, which cleared him for separation.
On the same day, the applicant’s intermediate commander concurred with the recommendation and further recommended that any rehabilitation action be waived.
On 18 December 1985, the approving authority waived rehabilitation and approved his discharge for misconduct, with a GD.
On 2 January 1986, the applicant was discharged with a GD, under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. He had 2 years, 9 months and 23 days of creditable service and no lost time. The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.
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 included minor disciplinary infarctions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and exertion or absences without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted in certain cases.
There are no records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge case within the 15-year time limit.
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 contention of youthful immaturity is noted; however, he had demonstrated a capacity for honorable service by completion of training and almost 2 years of service without an offense of record.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of any procedural errors that would jeopardize his rights.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reason therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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
___MKP_ ___JLP__ ___MMB_ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077122 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030114 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1986.01.02 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR .635-200 CH14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | DIRECTOR |
| ISSUES 1. | A 67.50 |
| 2. | A |
| 3. | A |
| 4. | A |
| 5. | A |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002651C070206
On 5 November 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty. He was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for misconduct, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and of the rights available to him. On 13 June 1985, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635- 200, chapter 14-12b, for misconduct-pattern of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005724
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 September 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070005724 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. On 23 December 1985, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of patterns of misconduct and directed the applicant be furnished a General...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005722C071029
Carmen Duncan | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 10 May 1985, the applicant’s commander advised him he was being considered for elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct. On 7 June 1985, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge, in pay grade E-5, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 14, for misconduct – drug abuse.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104116C070208
The applicant's DD Form 4/1, issued on 26 November 1985, shows he had completed 2 years, 10 months and 14 days of active military service. The applicant is authorized correction of his military record to show award of the OSR. Evidence shows that the applicant’s records contain administrative error which does not require action by the Board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074696C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Army policy states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted in certain cases.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063620C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. On 1 August 1985, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct – pattern of misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040001518C070208
Prior to the period of enlistment under review, the applicant served in the Army National Guard from 2 April 1977 to 6 August 1979 in military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (Cannon Crewmember) until he was ordered to active duty on 6 August 1979 for 20 months and 11 days in pay grade E-2. The board recommended that the applicant be separated from the service because of misconduct with an UOTHC discharge. Army policy states that a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080578C070215
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 9 October 1986, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct with a GD. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074159C070403
The applicant's commander stated that he had been enrolled in Operation Awareness and counseled by his chain of command and disposition by means other than separation were not feasible or appropriate because the applicant continued to abuse alcohol.On the same date, the applicant's commander requested that the requirement for further rehabilitative efforts be waived; that despite the attempts made by the chain of command, the applicant showed no rehabilitative potential; that he refused to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061592C070421
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Counsel stated that the...