| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 5 July 1989, he initially entered the Regular Army and he continuously served on active duty for 6 years, 10 months, and 17 days until receiving a GD on
21 May 1996.
On 14 March 1996, the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant that he intended to initiate action to separate him from the Army for the commission of as serious offense. The specific reasons cited by the unit commander for taking the action were as follows: violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully possessing a firearm on Fort Bliss, Texas; wrongfully striking a female in the back and choking her; wrongfully pulling the hair and shoving a female; and wrongfully kick a female in the abdominal area. The unit commander also informed the applicant that he was recommending that he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
On 15 March 1996, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, he completed his election of rights. He requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board (ASB); personal appearance before an ASB; consulting counsel; and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 2 May 1996, an ASB convened to consider the applicant’s case, with the applicant and his counsel present. The ASB found that the applicant did commit a serious offense under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200. In view of its findings, the ASB recommended that the applicant’s separation should not be suspended, and that the characterization of his separation should be general, under honorable conditions.
On 10 May 1996, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) reviewed the applicant’s case
and opined that the proceedings complied with the applicable regulation and that
the findings were supported by the evidence. As a result, the separation
authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that he receive a GD,
and on 21 May 1996, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of
his discharge, he had competed 6 years, 10 months, and 17 days of active
military service.
On 14 August 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after
determining that the characterization and reason for the applicant’s discharge
were proper and equitable, denied his request that his GD be upgraded to an
HD.
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 include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.
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 Board notes the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded from a GD to an HD. However, the evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.
2. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.
3. 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.
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
__CLA__ ___MHM___ __JTM__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077528 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/05 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1996/05/21 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Commission of a Serious Offense |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011211
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 8 November 1991, the unit commander notified the applicant that he intended to initiate separation action on him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), by reason of misconduct. The board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service due to misconduct commission of a serious offense and that he...
ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | AR1999018459
Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave. A-2: Counsel Issues: NONE B-l: Other Documents: NONE PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW (CONTINUED) The Board may only change the characterization or reason for discharge.
ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999028930
A-2: Counsel Issues: NONEB-l: Other Documents: NONE PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW (CONTINUED) PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. ADRIANCE Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority:THOMAS J. ALLEN Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board AR Number: 1999028930 INDEX NUMBERS: A9217 Date of Review: 990816 A9221 Character...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003383C071029
The unit commander cited the applicant's larceny of Government property and adultery, by cohabitating with a woman not his wife, while still legally married as the basis for taking the action. Although an honorable discharge (HD) or GD may be issued by the separation authority if warranted by the member's overall record of service, an UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. At his request, an administrative separation board considered his case...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086112C070212
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was informed that 6 months from the date of his separation from the Army his discharge would be upgraded to an HD. On 25 July 1996, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be discharged for commission of a serious offense under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200. On 5 March 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002568
The co-worker told him that the female PFC was at the emergency room claiming that the applicant and two others from the party had raped her. He further states that he attempted to have his discharge upgraded through the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB); however, his request was denied. However, the separation authority may direct a general or honorable discharge if such is merited by the Soldiers overall record of service.
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050013792
The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 30 May 1987. On 9 October 1990, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the ASB, and directed the applicant be separated with a GD under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200. The separation authority did recognize the applicant's long record of service by granting a GD, rather than the under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge that is...
ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999026077
The evidence of record shows that on 28 April 1993, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter l4, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—conviction by civil court, with a recommendation for an under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) discharge. The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief. AR Number: 1999026077 INDEX...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067230C070402
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. On 18 December 1996, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077806C070215
In support of his application, he submits: a portion of his separation packet that shows a last minute change was made to his separation action after he had completed most of his out-processing; and an Army Discharge Review Boards (ADRB) case report showing that he was marginally denied an upgrade of his discharge by a 3 to 2 vote. On 18 September 1997, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct with a GD. Carl W. S....