| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he performed continuous honorable service until his civil conviction due to an isolated case of violence that occurred overseas and that he is a victim of double jeopardy. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), two Certificates of Achievement, and an award certificate awarding him the Army Achievement Medal.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he enlisted
on 25 August 1987, as a military policeman.
On 20 March 1991, the applicant was convicted in the Inchon District Court, Ichon, Korea, on the charge of violation of the Law Concerning Punishment of Violent Act (Aggravated Assault). He was sentenced to confinement for 10 months, suspended for 2 years.
On 16 April 1991, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 14, by reason of civil conviction. He based his recommendation on the applicant’s conviction in the Inchon District Court on 20 March 1991, for violation of the Law Concerning Punishment of Violent Acts (Aggravated Assault) and his sentence to imprisonment for 10 months, suspended for 2 years.
The applicant consulted with counsel, requested consideration of his case by a board of officers, representation by counsel, and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. He requested that he be retained and stated that what happened to him was an isolated incident, which will never happen again. He is not trying to justify why it happened, but it happened and he has learned from his mistakes. He does not want to enter civilian life with a derogatory military record and still has more to contribute to his military career. Until this incident, he felt that he was the best soldier in his command and would like to put this incident behind him and return to being a soldier.
On 9 May 1991, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14, due to his civil court conviction.
On 13 June 1991, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 26 June 1991. He had a total of 3 years,
10 months, and 2 days of creditable service.
There is no evidence of any additional derogatory information in the applicant’s records.
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on
10 August 2002 for an upgrade of his discharge. After a thorough review of his record, including a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the infraction of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offense, the ADRB concluded that the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army Regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. After examining all circumstances, the ADRB determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed affect the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. It also diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief on 22 November 2002.
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, patterns of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.
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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were
appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. The Board noted the applicant's achievements; however, they are not sufficient to form a basis for an upgrade of his discharge.
4. The Board noted the comments made by the ADRB, including the fact that there was no additional derogatory information in the applicant's records. However, the ADRB concluded that his singe act of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of his service to warrant a fully honorable discharge.
This Board concurs with the ADRB's assessment.
5. 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.
6. 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___ __jm____ __rs____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002082270 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030717 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19910626 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, chapter 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 189 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011238
Counsel requests, in effect, that the reason for the applicant's discharge be changed from misconduct to medical. On 10 December 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of the applicant's military records and all other available evidence, determined that the applicant's discharge and reason were inequitable. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130009340
On 6 April 2001, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 4 May 2001, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-5, AR 635-200, for misconduct (civil conviction), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKB and an RE code of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000550
Counsel requests an upgrade of the applicant's UOTHC discharge to an honorable or a general discharge and a change to his RE code to a "1" or "2." The board recommended that the applicant be separated from the Army with a UOTHC discharge. Neither the applicant nor counsel have provided sufficient evidence to show that the applicant's discharge should be upgraded.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007746
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 July 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080007746 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20000036097 on 27 June 2000. The applicant would have completed 20 years of AFS on 1 March 2000.
ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | AR2003085896
On 13 September 1991, the separation authority approved the separation with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Applicant's issue(s) of propriety and/or equity: ( X ) Same as those listed on DD Form 293 and Part IV, Section A of this case report and directive. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified Ms. McKim-Spilker Case Reviewing Official PART VIII -...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089219C070403
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130000747
Based on the above misconduct, the commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 2 May 2011, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013128
On 6 November 1993, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for conviction by civil court. On 19 November 1993, consistent with the chain of command's recommendation, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006006
On 29 August 1980, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct conviction by civil court, directed the applicant be furnished an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. The evidence of record shows that the applicants discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army standards of acceptable...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130002781
On 13 November 2008, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant's record shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) for 1,625 days during the period 23 February 2003 through 5 August 2007, he was apprehended by civil authorities. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.