| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Member | ||
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was told his discharge would be upgraded six months after his discharge. He paid all the installments on his Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) and now he cannot receive it. He is trying to attend school so he can reenter the military. One brother died (apparently in an accident during peacetime) for and another brother is still serving his country. Supporting evidence is as listed on the DD Form 149.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered the Delayed Entry Program on 30 June 1995. He indicated he desired to participate in the MGIB and signed a DD Form 2366, Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984 (MGIB). He acknowledged that he understood his basic pay would be reduced $100 per month for each of his first 12 months of active duty and that basic pay reduction could not be refunded, suspended, or stopped. He also acknowledged that he must receive an honorable discharge for service establishing entitlement to the MGIB. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 November 1995 for 3 years.
On 19 December 1997, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to obey a lawful general regulation by wrongfully consuming alcohol while under the legal age of 21, for willfully and wrongfully damaging by smashing the windshield and flattening the front two tires of a privately-owned vehicle, by wrongfully using marijuana between 20 October and 20 November 1997, for assault by pushing and chasing
a noncommissioned officer with a bat, and for being drunk and disorderly.
The applicant's discharge packet is not available.
On 18 December 1997, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation. He also underwent a mental status evaluation on this date. He was found to meet the retention requirements of Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3.
On 31 December 1997, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct. He had completed 2 years, 1 month, and 9 days of creditable active service with no lost time.
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. Paragraph 14-12c is for commission of a serious offense. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.
Army Regulation 635-200 states, in pertinent part, that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. As a general matter, characterization will be based upon a pattern of behavior rather than an isolated incident. There are circumstances, however, in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the bases for characterization.
On 21 August 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
The U. S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.
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 and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.
2. The applicant was aware at the time he enlisted that an honorable discharge was required in order to draw MGIB benefits. It is not credible to believe that he was unaware that his misconduct (which is documented in his records and which presumably led to his early discharge) would lead to a characterization of service of something other than fully honorable. The applicant can be proud of his brothers but their service does not excuse his misconduct. Despite his receiving only one Article 15, the seriousness of the offenses which he committed could have led to a discharge under other than honorable conditions. It appears his command considered his overall record in directing he receive a general discharge under honorable conditions. A fully honorable characterization of service would not be appropriate.
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
__EJA__ __TBR___ ___KAH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077986 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/17 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1997/12/11 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023869
Also on 10 July 2001 and consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense, with a general under honorable conditions character of service. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200 provides for the separation of enlisted Soldiers.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012909
The applicant's military service records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 February 2002 for a period of 3 years. The applicants request for correction of his records to show that he completed his initial enlistment honorably to establish eligibility for MGIB benefits was carefully considered and determined to be without merit. The applicants military service records do not show that he was previously honorably discharged from any period of active military service as he contends.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013587
BOARD DATE: 2 April 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140013587 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 18 October 1991, he was notified of his pending separation for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for commission of a serious offense. b. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012873
A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. A Soldier separated for misconduct (all types) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, with a character of discharge of general under honorable conditions is not entitled to MGIB benefits. He was notified by his commander of his intention to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct and...
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100025803
Applicant Name: ????? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated and a self authored statement from the applicant. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary Court Martial BCD Bad Conduct Discharge...
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100000611
Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 23 May 2000, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense; in that he was found guilty at a trial by Summary Court-Martial for having used marijuana, and recommended that the applicant be separated from the Army with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005165
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090016414
Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 9 April 2009, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense for being absent from his unit on or about (090305-090309) and dereliction of duty when he failed to properly secure his M14 Rifle and Night Vision Device as it was his duty to do so, with a general, under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014594
Accordingly, he was discharged on 28 April 2006 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 3, by reason of court-martial with a bad conduct discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to...
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100023780
Applicant Name: ????? On 27 April 1998, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both...