| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | ||
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | 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 18 September 1997, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 3 years. He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 12B (Combat Engineer).
The applicant’s record shows that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3). It also shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the following awards: Army Service Ribbon; Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar; and Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.
His disciplinary record includes his acceptance of NJP, under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 15 December 1998 for adultery.
On 28 August 1998, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that separation action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of chapter 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200, for commission of a serious offense. The commander stated that the basis for the contemplated separation action was the applicant being arrested on 18 April 1998 for driving under the influence of alcohol and for purchasing alcohol for a minor; for having sexual intercourse with a married women, not his wife, on or about 30 November 1998; and for wrongfully using a controlled substance, cocaine, between the dates of 29 March and 29 April 1999.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action notification, consulted counsel, and completing his election of rights by waiving consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon his receiving a GD by reason of misconduct.
On 11 August 1999, the separation action was approved by the appropriate separation authority, who directed that the applicant receive a GD in accordance with the terms of the applicant’s conditional wavier agreement. On 8 September 1999, the applicant was discharged accordingly after completing a total of 1 year, 11 months, and 21 days of active military service
On 25 September 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request for a change to the narrative reason for his separation and an upgrade of the character of his discharge.
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. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. An honorable or general discharge may be awarded; however, an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate for members separated under these provisions
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 for an upgrade of his discharge. However, it finds no evidence to support this request. The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations and under the terms of his own conditional waiver request.
2. The record further shows that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case, and 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. Therefore, the Board concludes that applicant’s discharge is appropriate and accurately reflects the overall quality of his service.
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
__RVO__ __BJE__ __KAH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002079658 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/24 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19990908 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 Chapter 14. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | COSO |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | 110.0200 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067223C070402
On 12 September 2000, the applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial with a UOTHC discharge. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service...
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 | 2001064869C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: There is no evidence, nor has the applicant submitted any, to indicate that he was informed that he could reenlist at any time after his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064784C070421
He also requests correction of his DD Form 214, with a separation date of 26 May 1999, to show the correct prior active service in item 12d (Total Prior Active Service); correction of item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) to show "entry level status" or "uncharacterized"; and correction of item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) to show all the awards to which he is entitled. The applicant's DD Form 214, with a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064019C070421
The applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged for misconduct and that he receive an under honorable conditions discharge. Paragraph 4-9 states in effect that a waiver is required for any applicant who was discharged for misconduct. However, paragraph 4-24 states in effect that a waiver cannot be granted for persons with prior service last discharged from any component of the Armed Forces for drug or alcohol abuse.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063082C070421
On 24 November 1998, the applicant was notified by his commander that separation action was being initiated to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, based on his being an alcohol rehabilitation failure. The SPD code of JPD was the appropriate code for the applicant based on the guidance provided in Army Regulation 635-5-1 for soldiers separating under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, for alcohol rehabilitation failure. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063544C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 7 January 1998, the appropriate authority at ADAPCP recommended that the applicant be declared an alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure due to his inability to meet the requirements of the ADAPCP. On 16 March 1998, the applicant was discharged with a GD under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 9, by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure and assigned an RE code of RE-4.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087903C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant provides: a. Counsel adds that the applicant's commander recommended him for a GD when an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is considered normal in order to deprive applicant the opportunity to have his case heard by an impartial board of officers from outside his direct chain of command.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054138C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The Board notes that the applicant signed documents stating that he understood that he was being separated as an alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017728C070206
On 25 June 1999, while assigned to a unit at Fort Hood, Texas, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating separation action on him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense, with a discharge under honorable conditions. 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...