| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member | |
| Mr. Larry C. Bergquist | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was unjustly discharged. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 5 April 1999 for, in part, a $12,000 enlistment bonus. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer).
Between July 1999 and February 2000, the applicant was counseled on eight different occasions for infractions including missing accountability formation, missing physical training formation, falling asleep on fireguard duty in a 10-man Arctic tent with the stove burning, falling asleep on road guard, being absent without leave (AWOL), and missing movement.
On 24 November 1999, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for three specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty.
The applicant departed AWOL on 10 December 1999. He returned to military control on 10 January 2000.
On 1 March 2000, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation and was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings and to be mentally responsible.
On 14 March 2000, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL from 10 December 1999 to on or about 3 January 2000.
The applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.
On 26 July 2000, the commander initiated separation action on the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. He recommended the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC. He recommended the requirement for a rehabilitative transfer be waived as the applicant was resisting rehabilitation attempts.
On 7 August 2000, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action. He waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board conditional upon his receiving a general discharge. He submitted a statement in his own behalf. He stated that he always did what he was ordered to do except for one time, when an E-7 gave him an order countermanding something an E-5 told him to do. The only problems he had were being where he needed to be when he was needed to be there and going AWOL once. He stated that his pay decreased severely after September 1999, when he received his enlistment bonus. He was married and had a stepson and could not even afford to buy them a Christmas tree. He repeatedly tried to start his separate rations and cost of living allowance but nothing happened. So, on 9 December 1999, he moved his family from Fort Wainwright, Alaska to Michigan. He hoped the commander would grant this waiver so he could provide for his family (with a son on the way in September 2000) like a civilian would.
On 5 September 2000, the separation authority disapproved the applicant's request for a conditional waiver and directed an administrative separation board be appointed.
On 19 September 2000, the applicant waived his right to a hearing before an administrative separation board.
On 27 September 2000, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and the unconditional waiver and directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.
On 29 September 2000, the applicant was discharged, in the pay grade of E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct. He had completed 1 year, 5 months, and 25 days of creditable active service. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) does not show his lost time.
On 26 February 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted, in a unanimous decision, to deny the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.
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, 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.
Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel. In pertinent part, it states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
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. 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 indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. He had an opportunity to appear before an administrative separation board and waived his right to that board.
3. The Board has considered the applicant's statement, submitted with his discharge packet, concerning his pay and family concerns. However, the Board also considered his numerous infractions of military discipline and it appears to the Board that the characterization of his discharge as UOTHC was and still is appropriate. His overall record of service does not merit upgrading his discharge.
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
__fne___ __lem___ __lcb___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085970 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030506 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 20000929 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A64.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071095C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The discharge authority accepted the discharge recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a. On 5 April 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request to change his characterization and reason for discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019792
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The evidence of record and the provides no indication the applicant suffered from a physically or mentally disqualifying condition that would have supported his separation processing through the Army PDES at the time of his separation, and he has failed to provide independent evidence showing he suffered from a disqualifying medical condition at the time of his discharge. The evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087903C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant provides: a. Counsel adds that the applicant's commander recommended him for a GD when an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is considered normal in order to deprive applicant the opportunity to have his case heard by an impartial board of officers from outside his direct chain of command.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087164C070212
On 23 December 2001, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable and to change the reason for his discharge to Secretarial Authority. The applicant's narrative reason for separation is correct and was applied in accordance with the applicable regulations. The evidence of record shows the applicant received several adverse counseling statements, one Article 15, and 14 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080932C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 30 December 1996, the applicant's commander requested that an elimination packet be prepared on the applicant based on his wrongful use of cocaine and numerous counseling statements. The applicant was discharged on 26 February 2002.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130009910
On 10 May 2001, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Article 15, dated 4 April 2001, for: a. m. United States Army Oath of Reenlistment certificate, dated 11 September 1998. n. United States Army Honorable Discharge certificate, dated 10 September 1998. o.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001465C070206
The applicant served in the Regular Army from 3 June 1998 to 31 January 2001. On 16 January 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct. On 21 January 2001, the applicant was separated with a GD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001465C070206
The applicant served in the Regular Army from 3 June 1998 to 31 January 2001. On 16 January 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct. On 21 January 2001, the applicant was separated with a GD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088180C070403
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074152C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 4 October 1999, the applicant's company commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, for misconduct. However, the ADRB found the applicant's DD Form 214 to be administratively incorrect and directed that the separation authority be changed to "AR 635-200 CHAPTER 14-12C," the separation code as "JKQ," and...