| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | ||
| Mr. Lawrence Foster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by upgrading his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he is requesting a pardon and leniency for the GD he received some 14 years ago. He claims that since his reentry in the Army National Guard (ARNG) in 1997, he has served with the 190th Military Police Company, and has applied himself to a high military standard of excellence. He states that this has led him to join his fellow soldiers in the upper echelons of rank.
The applicant further states that during his ARNG service, he has participated
in Operation Noble Eagle and performed active duty military police duties at
Fort McPherson and Fort Gillem, Georgia. He states that in his civilian endeavors, he has pursued a career in law enforcement, but as a result of the GD his civilian career is at a stand still. He further states that if the Board upgrades his discharge, it will allow him to pursue his goal of civil service employment. In support of his application, he provides letters of support from members of his ARNG unit, which were originally provided to the Atlanta Police Department on his behalf.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2002071267) on 2 July 2002.
The applicant served on active duty in the Regular Army for 1 year and 8 days, from 5 September 1989 through 12 September 1990.
The applicant’s record reveals a disciplinary history that includes his receiving a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), for his involvement in a verbal and physical altercation with another soldier. It also includes his accepting nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for unlawfully striking a private first class.
Based on the applicant’s disciplinary record and poor duty performance, his unit commander recommended his discharge under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct. The separation authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that he receive a GD. On 12 September 1990, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
On 2 July 2002, after considering the applicant’s claim that his discharge was inhibiting his civilian law enforcement career, the Board found no error or injustice related to the applicant’s discharge, and it concluded that it accurately reflected the overall quality of the applicant’s service.
The applicant provides letters prepared by his ARNG unit commander, first sergeant, platoon sergeant, and squad leader, that were provided to the Atlanta Police Department on his behalf on 8 December 2002. These letters all attest to his outstanding performance of duty in the ARNG.
On 31 May 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) changed the reason for the applicant’s discharge from “Misconduct-Commission of a Serious Offense” to “Misconduct” based on current standards. However, it concluded that the applicant’s characterization of service was proper and equitable, and it voted not to upgrade his 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, and 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. Although an HD or GD may be authorized, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally considered appropriate for members separating 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 Board notes the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded in order to enhance his civilian career opportunities and it carefully considered the letters of support he provided from members of his ARNG unit, which attest to his outstanding performance in the ARNG. However, it finds these factors are 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. 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.
3. In the opinion of the Board, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects the overall quality of his service. It also notes that he received a GD as opposed to the UOTHC that is normally considered appropriate for members separating under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200.
4. The Board finally concludes that the overall merits of this case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
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
__LF__ _WTM__ __LE_ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
| CASE ID | AR2003086242 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | AR2002071267 |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/06/ |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1990/09/12 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct |
| BOARD DECISION | |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071267C070402
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board has determined that the applicant’s overall military service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel sufficient to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067570C070402
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. On 23 January 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002067570SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20020228TYPE OF DISCHARGE(GD)DATE OF DISCHARGE20010117DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR 635-200 Chapter 14DISCHARGE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076143C070215
The Board considered the following evidence: The applicant's Report of Separation and Record of Service, NGB Form 22, shows he was discharged from the ARARNG (but not as a Reserve of the Army) on 28 May 1979 by reason of being ordered to involuntary active duty. Counsel stated that it was the applicant's understanding that he was discharged from military service and that he was completely unaware of being placed on active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008990C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 JULY 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040008990 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. 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. On 15 October 1991 the applicant was...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130005017
The applicant states he served in the Army and Army National Guard and was discharged honorably. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 1 August 2008 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Abuse of Illegal Drugs), NGR 600-200, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 1st Bn, 178th Inf, Illinois Army National Guard, Chicago, IL f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 15 September 2003, NIF g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 years, 10 months, 17 days h. Total...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058362C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant’s records contain a copy of Headquarters, 102nd USAR Command Orders 49-26, dated 16 April 1985, which shows that he was honorably discharged from the USAR on 11 February 1985, in order to reenlist in the KSARNG. On 28 December 1987, the applicant’s commander submitted a request to separate the applicant from the KSARNG.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018620
On 6 April 1983, and again on 3 May 1983, the applicants commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. On 6 May 1983, the applicants commander formally recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. On 21 June 1983, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory...
ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110012707
Applicant Name: ????? The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board and submitted a statement in his own behalf. Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000859C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 February 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040000859 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. Kenneth W. Lapin | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001626
The applicant requests that his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable and that the narrative reason of "Misconduct - Pattern of Misconduct", be removed from his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). On 10 October 1990, the applicant's company commander notified him that he was intending to take action to effect his discharge for a pattern of misconduct. On 10 October 1990, the applicants commander recommended separation from...