| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | 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).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he completed all but two weeks of his term of enlistment, and the awards that he received during his active duty tenure warrant an upgrade of his discharge. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 2 July 1979, the applicant entered the Regular Army for a period of 4 years.
He was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B
(Light Weapons Infantryman), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3). During his active duty tenure, he earned the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) and the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM).
The applicant’s record contains an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on the following five separate occasions for the offenses indicated: 28 January 1980, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; 9 April 1980, for being derelict in the performance of his duty as the company charge of quarters runner; 2 April 1981, for disobeying a lawful command from a commissioned officer; 11 December 1982, for disorderly conduct; and 8 April 1983, for disobeying a lawful order of a noncommissioned officer. In addition, he was formally counseled by members of his chain of command for indebtedness.
On 16 May 1983, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance. The reasons cited for the action were the applicant’s failure to execute the duties of a soldier, and the fact that five NJP actions for misconduct and performance counseling had failed to improve his performance of duty.
On 18 May 1983, the applicant consulted legal counsel and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, he elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. However, he failed to submit his statement within the required 7 days, which constituted a waiver of this right.
On 3 June 1983, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that he receive a GD. On 16 June 1983, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 3 years, 11 months, and 15 days of active military 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 statue 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 notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded based on his overall record of honorable service, as evidenced by his receiving the ARCOM and the AGCM. However, it finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance, was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation was based upon his unsatisfactory performance and acts of misconduct, as evidenced by his disciplinary and counseling record. In the opinion of the Board, his disciplinary history clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting an HD. Therefore, the Board concludes that his GD accurately reflects the overall quality of his service and that the requested relief is not warranted in this 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
__JNS__ __ MHM _ __ JTM __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002082037 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/03/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19830616 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Unsatisfactory |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 149.400 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069047C070402
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 | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130003953
After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the characterization of service is too harsh and as a result it is inequitable based on the following reasons: a. overall length and quality (i.e., ARCOM, AAM, and AGCM) of the applicants service to include his combat service and his DD Form 214 shows he completed 6 years, 4 months and 14 days of active military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006826C071029
Qawiy A. Sabree | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. However, the record does contain a properly constituted separation document that contains the authority and reason for the applicant's separation, and there is a presumption of regularity attached to this document.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066394C070402
The board recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 13 May 1983 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service during his current enlistment which included one nonjudicial punishment for possession of marijuana, 11...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015066
The social worker recommended that the applicant be considered for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, due to his unsatisfactory performance in the military. On 7 December 1983, his battery commander recommended his separation for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. There is no evidence in the applicant's available military service records that shows he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006942C070206
He states that after 3 years, 8 months, and 26 days of service, and after having earned the Army Achievement Medal (AAM) and Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM), he was unjustly separated for unsatisfactory performance. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms he was separated under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance after completing 3 years, 8 months, and 26 days of active military service. In...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003653C070208
Item 9 (Awards, Decorations and Campaigns) of the applicant’s DA Form 2- 1 shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM), Senior Parachutist Badge, Expert Infantryman Badge (EIB), Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon (NCOPDR)-Numeral 2, Army Service Ribbon (ASR), Overseas Service Ribbon (OSR), Expert Qualification Badge with Rifle, Mortar and Automatic Rifle Bars, and Marksman Qualification Badge with Hand Grenade Bar. Thus, his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081199C070215
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063346C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The convening authority approved the sentence on 29 April 1983; however, he set aside the portion of the sentence pertaining to the forfeiture of pay on 9 May 1983. On 17 October 1983, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, based on his disciplinary record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016402
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He understood that if he received a discharge/character of service which is less than honorable, he could make application to the Army Discharge Review Board or the Army Board for correction of Military Records for upgrading. The applicant contends that his general discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge.