| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he needs his discharge upgraded so that he can obtain educational benefits to better himself and better provide for his family.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted at the age of 21, on 14 April 1998, for a period of 4 years, training as a multi-channel transmission systems operator and a $4,000 cash enlistment bonus. He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Korea on 30 October 1998. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 November 1999 and was transferred to Fort Bliss, Texas on 18 November 1999.
On 6 March 2001, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for stealing (shoplifting) three playstation video games from the post exchange. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
On 25 June 2001, NJP was imposed against him for being disrespectful in language towards a superior commissioned officer, two specifications of disobeying lawful orders from superior noncommissioned officers and one specification of using disrespectful language towards a superior noncommissioned officer. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
On 26 July 2001, the applicant's commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct. He cited the applicant's disciplinary record and his failure to respond to repeated counseling sessions as the basis for his recommendation.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf, whereas he asserted that a general discharge was disproportionate to his admitted misconduct. He further stated that his overall record of service should be considered and asserted that his discharge alone was sufficient punishment. He requested that he be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate so that he could qualify for veterans educational benefits and would not be subjected to prejudice in the civilian community with a less than honorable discharge.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 31 July 2001 and directed that he be furnished with a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 7 August 2001, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct. He had served 3 years, 3 months and 24 days of total active service.
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 8 July 2002 for an upgrade of his discharge and cited the same reasons he has cited to this Board. The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and voted unanimously to deny his request on 12 November 2002.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct. Specific categories include minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and/or military authorities, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
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.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. The Board has noted the applicant's contentions that his entire record of service should be taken into consideration and that he should be given an honorable discharge so he can use his educational benefits. However, given the fact that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for the type of offenses committed by the applicant, it is apparent that his record was considered by the chain of command at the time. Furthermore, the Board does not find that the desire to obtain educational benefits as sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief, given the circumstances of his case.
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
__jm____ ___lds___ ___tbr___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002082350 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/05/01 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 2001/08/07 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | MISCONDUCT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 626 | 144.6000/A60.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051795C070420
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. There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations. Numerical designators "2" and "3" indicate that an individual has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restrictions in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076789C070215
On 18 September 1968, the applicant’s commander submitted a request to have the applicant rehabilitatively transferred to another unit. The applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service for unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, on 30 April 1969. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015404
Counsel argues three contentions: * the applicant's discharge under Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10, was not authorized because the summary court-martial which was to be convened to adjudicate the charges against the applicant was not empowered to adjudge a punitive discharge; the applicant was mistakenly advised by his defense attorney * the applicant was following the requirements XVIII Airborne Corps Regulation 612-10 (Personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016056C070206
On 14 October 1975, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disorderly conduct (two specifications). There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. Since the applicant’s record of service included nine nonjudicial punishments and 24 days of lost time, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003972
On 28 January 1986, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him violating a lawful general regulation by operating a government vehicle at an excessive speed. He enlisted in the NYARNG on 7 April 1994 for a period of 3 years and on 9 November 1995, he was granted a waiver to remain in the NYARNG after it was determined that his enlistment was fraudulent because he had concealed his arrest record. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130003816
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. On 25 July 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense, specifically for, testing positive for marijuana on (080506). On 31 July 2008, the separation authority approved and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015537
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 March 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090015537 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. 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. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the discharge appropriately...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003445
On 14 July 1969, the applicant was notified of his pending separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness with an undesirable discharge. The applicant was discharged on 31 July 1969 with an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001211C070206
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 25 January 1980, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001211C070206
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 25 January 1980, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them...