| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Carolyn Wade | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his records be corrected to show that he has an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate (DA Form 256A) on 10 January 1992 when he was discharged from the Army; however, his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) does not reflect that he was honorably discharged from the Army. He submits his Honorable Discharge Certificate in support of his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 27 March 1990, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. He enlisted for the United States Army COHORT Enlistment Option and the United Sates Army Cash Bonus Enlistment Option. Following completion of all required military training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B, Cannon Crewmember, and was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado.
On 10 January 1991, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for violating battalion visitation policy and for failing to obey a written order. His punishment consisted of an oral reprimand and 14 days’ extra duty and restriction (restriction suspended for 60 days, to be automatically remitted by 11 March 1992).
On 1 May 1991, the unit commander recommended that the applicant be barred from reenlistment due to a history of nonjudicial punishment, and his writing numerous dishonored checks. On 21 May 1991, the Bar to Reenlistment was approved. On 23 May 1991, the applicant indicated he would not appeal the Bar to Reenlistment.
Between 24 October 1991 and 6 January 1992, the applicant accumulated 4 periods of AWOL (absence without leave). There is no evidence in the record that he was ever punished for these periods of AWOL.
On 27 November 1991, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of chapter 14-12a, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct – minor disciplinary infractions, with a UOTHC discharge. The applicant was advised of his rights.
On 2 January 1992, the Acting Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the elimination proceedings against the applicant and found them to be legally sufficient.
On 2 January 1992, the appropriate authority approved the separation with a UOTHC discharge and an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate (DA Form 794A). Accordingly, on 10 January 1992, he was separated from the Army with a UOTHC discharge after completing 1 year, 8 months, and 25 days of creditable military service and accruing 19 days of lost time. The applicant was issued DA Form 256A (Honorable Discharge Certificate) for this period of service ending 10 January 1992 instead of DA Form 794A.
On 12 December 1996, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. On 9 April 1997, the ADRB upgraded the applicant’s discharge to a general discharge (GD).
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, and 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.
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 evidence of record reflects that the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation from service with a UOTHC discharge and DA Form 794A. However, the record shows the applicant was erroneously issued DA Form 256A instead of DA Form 794A.
3. The Board also notes that the ADRB upgraded the applicant’s UOTHC discharge to a GD on 9 April 1997. Accordingly, he was issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting a general, under honorable conditions character of service.
4. Although the applicant was issued DA Form 256A, his DD Form 214 appropriately reflects that he was separated with a UOTHC discharge on 10 January 1992. Therefore, the Board concludes that the issuance of DA Form 256A to the applicant was an error and that the issuance of DA Form 256A instead of DA Form 794A does not provide a basis for upgrading his discharge to an honorable discharge.
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
__jlp___ __aao___ __phm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003083832 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030923 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19920110 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000598
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). In his election, he acknowledged that because he had less than 6 years service, he was not entitled to have his case heard by an administrative separation board unless he was being considered for an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. The separation authority may issue an HD or GD if warranted by the overall record of service; however, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010189
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded and that the reason for separation be changed. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. Although the applicant's good character and post service conduct and the impact his war experiences had on him as attested to in the supporting statements are noteworthy, there is no evidence that he was suffering from any disabling physical or mental conditions during...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011211
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 8 November 1991, the unit commander notified the applicant that he intended to initiate separation action on him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), by reason of misconduct. The board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service due to misconduct commission of a serious offense and that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | AR20080008922
The applicant requests that his 1996 DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to reflect award of the Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KLM-SA) and the Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Government of Kuwait (KLM-K). The primary Desert Shield/Storm file contains one record for each active duty member who participated in-theater between 1990 and 1997. The applicant was released from active duty on 19 October 1996 with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011759
On 3 November 1998, he was honorably discharged from the USAR. Therefore, because he was in an entry-level status at the time of his release from IADT, his period of active service was properly determined to be uncharacterized in accordance with the regulation in effect at the time. The DD Form 256A he submitted is based on his discharge from the USAR on 2 November 1998, over 7 years after his release from IADT.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070015352
The following members, a quorum, were present: The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). Although his AWOL is not condoned, the family situation he faced and his belief that going AWOL was the only possible solution to his problems are compelling mitigating factors for his misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000439C070206
Leonard Hassell | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 17 March 1987 shows the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal as an authorized award. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command, St. Louis, Missouri Permanent Orders Number W-02-390271 dated 27 February 2003 awarded the applicant the Army Good...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120016026
However, the record does contain a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), in lieu of trial by court martial. Although an honorable discharge (HD) or general discharge (GD) is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate. This document confirms the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084706C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 16 December 1994 requesting that his discharge be upgraded because he was unjustly discharged for the convenience of the government and was being denied the benefits that he had earned. The evidence of record clearly indicates that he was discharged for his own misconduct and his record of service is not sufficiently...
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...