| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member | ||
| Ms. Yolanda Maldonado | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was informed that 6 months from the date of his separation from the Army his discharge would be upgraded to an HD.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 12 July 1995, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 3 years. He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13F (Fire Support Specialist).
The applicant’s record shows that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2. It also shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the following awards: National Defense Service Medal; Army Service Ribbon; and Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.
The applicant’s disciplinary record for the enlistment under review includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions. The first NJP was for two specifications of wrongfully using marijuana, and the second was for three specifications of failing to report to his appointed place of duty.
On 10 July 1996, the applicant was notified of his unit commander’s intent to initiate action to separate him under the following provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200, for the commission of a serious offense. The unit commander stated that the basis for the contemplated separation action was the applicant’s record of NJP.
On 16 July 1996, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action notification. He consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects, of the rights available to him, and of the effect of waiving those rights. Subsequent to this counseling, he completed his election of rights by waiving his right to have his case considered by and to appear before an administrative separation board; and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 25 July 1996, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be discharged for commission of a serious offense under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200. He also directed that the applicant receive a GD.
On 28 August 1996, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of his separation, he had completed a total of 1 year, 1 month, and 17 days of creditable active military service.
On 5 March 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable, and it denied his request for an upgrade of the character of his 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. An honorable or general discharge may be awarded; however, an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate for members separated under these provisions.
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 evidence of record confirms the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant’s discharge is appropriate and accurately reflects the overall quality of his service.
2. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he was told that his discharge would be upgraded six months after his discharge. However, it finds no evidence to support this claim. The Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits an application to either the ADRB or this Board, requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if a Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. The Board finds no such conditions exist in this case and in view of these facts, an upgrade to the applicant’s discharge is not warranted at this time.
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
__rtd ___ __ym ___ __jhl____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003086112 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/04/15 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1996/08/28 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Commission of a serious offense |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 671 | 144.6730 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077528C070215
On 2 May 1996, an ASB convened to consider the applicant’s case, with the applicant and his counsel present. 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: However, the evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013953
The applicant requests his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006438
On 6 June 1996, his commander submitted a recommendation that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14. There is no evidence showing the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The available evidence does not support the applicant's request for an upgrade of his GD to an HD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009421
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 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. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was separated under the provisions of Paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense (drug abuse) based...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012684
On 16 January 1996, he was discharged under honorable conditions (general) in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. His misconduct diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge and he has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003122C070206
The applicant requests correction of Item 25 (Separation Authority), Item 26 (Separation Code) and Item 27 (Reentry Code) of his 21 June 1994 separation document (DD Form 214). 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. The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s commander recommended his separation under the provisions of paragraph...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008298
On 3 December 2003, the applicant was counseled for the positive urinalysis for the use of drugs (D-Methamphetamines). Subsequent to receiving this counseling, the applicant completed his election of rights by waiving his right to have his case considered by an administrative separation board, and declined to submit statements in his own behalf. However, by regulation, the type of discharge received and the RE-4 code assigned were proper for a member separating under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006845
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD). The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), by reason of misconduct drug abuse. Although the authority and reason for the applicant's discharge authorized the imposition of an under other than honorable conditions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016184
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). In an undated memorandum, his commander informed him of his intent to initiate action to separate him for serious misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c. His commander stated the reason for the action was the NJP he had received on 16 March 1995 and 9 February 1996.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019806
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 14 April 1992, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense and directed he receive a GD. On 30 September 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board, after careful consideration and review of the applicant's military records and all other available evidence,...