| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor . | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Frank C. Jones | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she has found it difficult to secure a job with a GD. In support of her application, she provides a copy of her separation document (DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She entered active duty in the Regular Army on 20 August 1997. She successfully completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Lee, Virginia. Upon completion of AIT, she was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92A (Automobile Logistics Specialist).
The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and the highest rank she attained while serving on active duty was private first class.
The applicant’s record does reveal a disciplinary history that includes her acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on 15 March 1993, for failing to obey a lawful order and making a false official statement. The punishment imposed included a reduction to private/E-2.
In addition, the applicant’s record shows that she was formally counseled by members of his chain of command on several occasions, between June 1998 and March 1999, for a myriad of disciplinary infractions that included repeated indebtedness, missing formations, failure to follow company curfew policy, failing company inspections, and the poor appearance of her area.
On 21 April 1999, the applicant was notified by her unit commander that separation action was being initiated against her for patterns of misconduct under the provisions chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200. The applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effects of such a separation, the rights available to her, and the effect of any action taken by her in waiving her rights.
On 17 May 1999, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that she receive as GD. On 26 May 1999, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of her discharge, she had completed a total of 1 year, 9 months. And 7 days of active military service.
On 6 August 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board voted to deny the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge after determining that it was proper and equitable.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 contains the policy guidance for separation by reason of misconduct. The issuance of 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. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that her discharge should be upgraded because she has found it difficult to secure a job with a GD. However, it finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the Board finds that her discharge accurately reflects her overall record of undistinguished service.
3. . 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.
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
__FCJ___ __BJE__ ___RO__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003083993 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/08/ |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1999/05/26 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061832C070421
The applicant requests correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show her primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) as 31L [wire systems installer] and correction of her records to show all of the certificates she submitted with her application. On 17 October 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge to honorable. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085405C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. She goes on to state that she received orders to Fort Sill and went absent without leave (AWOL) for several days before turning herself in to a Selfridge, Michigan Army base. After being at Fort Sill for several weeks, her mother called her and told her that her uncle had died and she informed her commander that she wanted to go home for the funeral.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087826C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDARSUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDEDTYPE OF DISCHARGE(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)DATE OF DISCHARGEDISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR DISCHARGE REASONBOARD DECISION(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.2.3.4.5.6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084086C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005089C070208
On 6 March 2003, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation for consideration of a discharge due to a personality disorder. On the same date, the applicant was issued a temporary Physical Profile due to adjustment disorder/personality disorder. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090797C070212
Accordingly, she was discharged under honorable conditions on 14 August 1987, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090021C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the undesirable discharge (UD) her husband, a former service member (FSM), received be upgraded to an honorable discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The FSM’s military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013182
In her self-authored statement, dated 13 August 2007, the applicant describes her difficulties adjusting to a predominantly male Army and describes occasions of sexual harassment she encountered during her military service. The applicant was neither married nor had any children during her military service. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087042C070212
In support of her application, she submits a copy of her diploma from the MOS 63G Fuel and Electrical Systems Repair Course, and her separation document (DD Form 214). EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Although the applicant provides a document that indicates she completed the requirements of the Fuel and Electrical Systems Repair Course, the record confirms she was discharged by reason of pregnancy prior to initial assignment and never performed MOS 63G duties in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081776C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, the allegations made against her at Fort Sam Houston are unsubstantiated and false. When the applicant has established that she has been harmed, the Board first looks at whether it can rectify the injustice by correcting the records related to the outcome of the titling, instead of reversing the titling decision.