Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03091984C070212
Original file (03091984C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied




RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 19 FEBRUARY 2004
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003091984


         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.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond J. Wagner Chairperson
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer Member
Mr. Robert L. Duecaster Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:


1. The applicant requests that his discharge under honorable conditions (general) be upgraded to honorable.

2. The applicant states that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) informed him that he could not receive any benefits unless his discharge was upgraded.

3. The applicant provides a copy of the VA letter and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 29 July 1998, completed training and in December 1998 was assigned to Fort Wainwright, Alaska.

2. On 11 May 1999 the applicant was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for meritorious achievement from 1 March through 13 March 1999.

3. On 10 September 1999 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) for disobeying a lawful order.

4. On 13 November 1999 the applicant was informed that his driving privileges at Fort Wainwright, Richardson, and Greely, Alaska, were suspended for five years pending resolution of a drunken driving incident and driving while his installation driving privileges were suspended.

5. On 10 December 1999 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for disobeying a lawful order, that is driving on post on 13 November 1999, having been directed not to do so.

6. The applicant's commanding officer informed the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him for a pattern of misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, stating that he violated a general order on two occasions, was arrested by the Fairbanks Police Department for driving under the influence, and failed to be at his appointed place of duty on several occasions. He informed the applicant that he was recommending that he receive a general under honorable conditions characterization of service.

7. On 23 December 1999 the applicant consulted with counsel and stated that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action, its effect, the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. He stated that he understood that if he received a discharge which was less than honorable, he could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board and this Board for upgrading; however, that an act of consideration by either board did not imply that his discharge would be upgraded.

8. The applicant's commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged. With his recommendation he indicated that he had included a record of counseling, and reports of medical examination and mental status evaluation. The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

9. The applicant was discharged on 12 January 2000.

10. On 30 October 2002 the VA informed the applicant that he was ineligible for education benefits because of the nature of his discharge, "general under honorable conditions." The VA informed him that he could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board or this Board for relief.

11. On 21 May 2003, in an unanimous opinion, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge, stating that the board did not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining access to veteran's benefits.

12. 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, conviction 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. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate; however, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS :

1. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with applicable law and regulations. The applicant's discharge was warranted in view his acts of misconduct. The actions of the Army in this case were appropriate. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request. Relief is not warranted.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ RJW __ __ MHM _ __ RLD __ DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.





                  ___Raymond J. Wagner_____
                  CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID AR2003091984
SUFFIX
RECON YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED 20040219
TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 110.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00228

    Original file (BC-2005-00228.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 1 October 1971, the Evaluation Officer recommended the applicant be separated from the Air Force with a general discharge as soon as possible. On 11 July 1973, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) denied the applicant’s request that his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (Exhibit B). Although the applicant did not specifically request consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence to...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130016198

    Original file (AR20130016198.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 15 September 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct, specifically for: a. receiving a FG Article 15 on 13 December 2010, for driving under the influence of alcohol and being drunk on duty; b. being charged with poaching in a civilian court; and c. disobeying a lawful order by...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090006980

    Original file (AR20090006980.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 April 2002, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions. Accordingly, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130003115

    Original file (AR20130003115.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states, in effect, he was a good Soldier and had only one incident on 24 December 2009 for drinking and driving. On 17 March 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. In fact, the applicant’s numerous negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct, and a serious incident of drinking and driving.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130015991

    Original file (AR20130015991.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He completed 5 years, 11 months, 10 days of active duty service. The DD Form 214 indicates that on 6 February 2013, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061180C070421

    Original file (2001061180C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    d. Records show that the applicant was properly notified of intent to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, that he was afforded the opportunity to have his case considered by a board of officers and to be represented by counsel, that his case was heard by a board of officers, and that only after receiving the recommendations of the board of officers, did the appropriate separation authority direct the applicant’s discharge. The Board considered the applicant’s...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027483

    Original file (20100027483.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. The applicant states he was told his discharge would be upgraded; it has been over 19 years since he was discharged.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090007733

    Original file (AR20090007733.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Although not dated, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: N/A Other: N/A RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: ?????

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091546C070212

    Original file (2003091546C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 January 2002, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct, and directed the issuance of a general discharge. On 28 Mary 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008524

    Original file (20080008524.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Item 25 (Separation Authority) of the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued to the applicant upon separation indicates he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c (Commission of a serious offense) of chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct) of Army Regulation 635-200. The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table indicates that RE code 3 is the proper code to assign members separated with SPD code JKQ. As a result, the Board recommends that all...