| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Paul M. Smith | Member | |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he completed 2 years and 4 months of creditable service. However, due to the incompatibility of his acting commanding officer and himself, it led to his discharge from the service, which he now knows, was an injustice to him and the US Army.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 9 February 1984, as a combat telecommunications center operator.
Between 18 September 1984 and 2 January 1986, he received nine counseling statements for speeding, failure to go to his appointed place of duty on two occasions, not conforming to standards, disobeying a lawful order on two occasions, and for failure to return to his appointed place of duty on three occasions.
The applicant was promoted to pay grade E-3 effective 1 January 1985.
He was barred from reenlistment on 10 February 1986.
On 19 February 1986, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on two occasions. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of pay, reduction to E-2 (suspended), and 14 days restriction and extra duty.
The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 2 April 1986, which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.
On 3 April 1986, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to obey a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer and for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of pay, reduction to E-1, and 14 days restriction and extra duty.
On 14 April 1986, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of pay and 45 days restriction and extra duty.
The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 16 April 1986, and was found qualified for separation.
On 29 May 1986, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. He based his recommendation on the applicant’s numerous counseling statements, three article 15s, bar to reenlistment, and poor duty performance. The applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 30 May 1986, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.
On 2 June 1986, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 10 June 1986. He had a total of 2 years,
4 months, and 2 days of creditable service.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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.
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 noted the applicant’s extensive record of numerous counseling statements, three Article 15s, bar to reenlist, and use of poor judgement. In view of these offenses and his undistinguished record of service, the Board determined that he was properly discharged and there was no inequity or injustice, which warranted upgrading his discharge.
2. 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.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were
appropriate considering all of 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
__jl___ ___ps___ __jp____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002079579 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030603 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19860610 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, chapter 13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 191/360 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009131C070205
Jeffrey Redmann | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant was discharged on 12 January 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant’s service record shows he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 on five separate occasions and a bar to reenlistment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014255
x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant was discharged on 13 December 1985 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The applicants service record shows he received two Article 15s, both for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, a Military Police Report for driving with a suspended drivers license, a bar to reenlistment, and numerous adverse...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002146C070205
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant was discharged on 5 April 1988, in the pay grade of E-1. Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of Soldiers due to their unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual would not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017230
The applicant requests that his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 14 September 1988, the company commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend that he be discharged under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) by reason of unsatisfactory performance. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709343
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709343C070209
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. However, it does include a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004505
On 8 June 1987, following counseling, the applicant submitted a voluntary written request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations). On 6 July 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed he be given an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Further, it appears the applicant's discharge reflects his overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002224C070206
During February 1986 and June 1986, the applicant received three adverse counseling statements for failure to perform as an E-4 and for intent to impose separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 13 and a bar to reenlistment in accordance with Army Regulation 601-280. The applicant's service record shows he received two Article 15s, a bar to reenlistment and several adverse counseling statements. As a result, his record of service was not honorable and did not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011806
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 23 March 1987 and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, on 8 April 1987, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074735C070403
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. The applicant requests...