| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Member | ||
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: No contentions submitted.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 26 July 1983, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 6 years, after serving 2 years, 10 months and 2 days of active service. The highest pay grade she achieved was grade was E-4.
The applicant was counseled on numerous occasions for writing bad checks, for indebtedness problems, absenteeism due to lack of childcare for her children, severe personal problems and for substandard performance and conduct.
The applicant’s record indicates that she was provided a financial advisor, she was given an alternate duty assignments and she received extensive counseling both by her chain of command and by community counseling services in an attempt to assist her with her personal and financial problems.
On 7 December 1984, the applicant was barred from reenlistment. She was barred from reenlistment because of substandard performance and conduct and for her failure to respond to financial counseling.
On 14 May 1985, a psychiatric evaluation diagnosed the applicant as having an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The psychiatrist recommended an expeditious administrative discharge.
On 20 May 1985, the commander notified the applicant that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s unsatisfactory performance and action, which indicated that she could not be rehabilitated for productive military service. The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to her. She submitted a statement in her own behalf; however, the statement is missing from her file.
On 28 May 1985, a mental and a physical status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation. She was considered mentally and physically competent to participate in board proceedings.
On 20 June 1985, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation, waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the issuance of a general discharge. On 2 July 1985, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. She had completed 4 years, 9 months and 9 days of creditable active service. The applicant was not transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.
On 16 December 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her 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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.
3. Therefore the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. 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
__JHL__ __MDM__ ___REB__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077413 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/19 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1985/07/02 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, chp13. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A49.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1.144.4900 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012518C071113
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 March 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060012518 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 31 May 1985, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. There is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075510C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 5 March 1985, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. Previously, Army Regulation 635-200, the pertinent paragraph in chapter 5, provided that commanders could expeditiously discharge members under the TDP who lacked the necessary motivation, discipline,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013182
In her self-authored statement, dated 13 August 2007, the applicant describes her difficulties adjusting to a predominantly male Army and describes occasions of sexual harassment she encountered during her military service. The applicant was neither married nor had any children during her military service. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9611208C070209
She was counseled on 16 July for her unsatisfactory duty performance. On 30 July 1991 the applicants commanding officer initiated action to separate the applicant for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. The service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017241C070206
The evidence of record does confirm that she took a lethal dose of pills; however, there is no other evidence in her military record nor has she presented any evidence in support of her allegations. Therefore, given the circumstances in this case and her overall record of service, there is insufficient evidence to support her request at this time. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004934C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that her general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. This man (her husband) made his way back into the country of Germany on just an ID Card.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070011955
The applicant requests that the narrative reason and separation code be changed on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation date of 19 May 1988. The applicant states, in effect, that her current DD Form 214 lists the narrative reason as "unsatisfactory performance" and the separation code as "JHJ" which she states is an injustice in that she now believes that her personal conduct and behavior that she exhibited on active duty was the result of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001240
On 15 April 1985, the applicant's unit commander notified her of his intent to recommend she be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11 (Trainee Discharge Program). c. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017527
The applicant requests an upgrade of her general discharge to a fully honorable discharge. On 18 April 1988, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against her in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of unsatisfactory performance (academic and Soldier deficiencies). Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 13 May 1988.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013748
On 4 September 1985, the separation authority waived the rehabilitation requirements and approved the applicant's discharge from the Army under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200. When separated within the first 180 days, service is usually not characterized unless the circumstances of the separation warrant an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Without a PEB, the applicant could not have been issued a medical discharge or separated for physical disability.