| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Yvonne J. Foskey | Analyst |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Robert L. Duecaster | Member | ||
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | 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 believes he is entitled to an upgrade of his discharge because he was not at fault for the incident that resulted in his discharge. He further states that the other individual involved in the incident received an HD.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 17 October 1991, he enlisted in the Regular Army for five years. He successfully completed basic training at Fort Knox, Kentucky. He attended advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, to train in military occupation specialty (MOS) 91R (Veterinary Food Inspector). However, he was dropped from this course and reassigned to Fort Lee, Virginia, to attend AIT in MOS 77F (Petroleum Supply Specialist), which he successfully completed.
The applicant’s records show that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2. The record also shows that during his active duty tenure he earned the National Defense Service Medal, and the Army Service Ribbon. There are no other acts of valor, significant achievement or service warranting special recognition during his active duty tenure.
The record does reveal an extensive disciplinary history that includes the applicant’s acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which resulted in reduction in grade to private/E-1. In addition, the record shows he received formal counseling from members of his chain of command on ten separate occasions, between 10 July and 1 September 1992, for a myriad of disciplinary infractions.
On 11 September 1992, his unit commander notified the applicant that separation action was being initiated on him for a pattern of misconduct. This recommendation was primarily based on the applicant’s frequent insubordination, failure to obey orders, and absenteeism from his place of duty. It also documented the extensive counseling the applicant received from various members of the chain of command, and his record of NJP.
On 17 September 1992, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, and after being advised of the basis of the contemplated separation action, he completed an election of rights. He elected to waive consideration of his case by a board of officers and representation by counsel. He also chose not to submit a statement of rebuttal in his own behalf.
The separation authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed that he receive a GD. On 2 October 1992, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation shows that he received a GD, under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b, by reason of misconduct. It also shows that at the time of his separation, he held the rank of PV1, and he had completed a total of 11 months, and 16 days of creditable active military service.
On 5 February 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board found that the characterization and reason for the applicant’s discharge were both proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his request that his GD be upgraded to an HD.
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. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he was not at fault for his discharge. However, the record shows that he was notified of the contemplated separation action by his unit commander, consulted legal counsel, and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and of its possible effects. In addition, subsequent to this counseling, he elected to waive his right to have his case considered by a board of officers.
2. 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. Further, it finds that the character of the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. Therefore, the Board concludes that an upgrade to his 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
__RLD___ __KH___ __GJW___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065876C070421
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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: The Board finally concludes that the applicant has failed to provide sufficient new and convincing evidence that would warrant a reversal of the previous Board denials in his case, or that warrants a further...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077535C070215
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: On 14 August 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge after concluding that his discharge was proper and equitable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012705
Although an HD or a GD may be issued by the separation authority if warranted by the member's overall record of service, an under other that honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. Further, the applicant's record of military service was not sufficiently meritorious for the separation authority to support an HD at the time of his discharge, nor does it support an upgrade at this time. Therefore, the Board determined that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016400
Although a UOTHC conditions discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter, the separation authority may issue a GD or HD if warranted by the member's overall record of service. Further, the applicant's record of military service was not sufficiently meritorious for the separation authority to support an HD or GD at the time of his discharge, nor does it support an upgrade at this time. Further, even if the GD was properly issued based on documentation not on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006383
Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating soldiers from active duty, and the SPN codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability (character and behavior disorder). As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059265C070421
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. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that a change to the reason for his discharge is supported by documents in his military service record. On 19 May 1992, the appropriate separation authority after reviewing the separation packet to include the applicant’s statement, directed he be separated with a GD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010263
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge (GD), under honorable conditions or to a fully honorable discharge (HD). On 19 February 1993, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed that he receive a UOTHC discharge. The evidence of record further shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007404
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 29 March 1984, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200, based on his record of NJP for drug use. An honorable or general discharge may be awarded by the separation authority if warranted by the member's overall record of service; however, an UOTHC discharge is normally considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017906
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time. Further, the applicant's record of military service was not sufficiently meritorious for the separation authority to support an HD at the time of his discharge, nor does the evidence support an upgrade at this time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088370C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, and after being advised of the basis of the contemplated separation action and the effects of an UD, he completed his election of rights. On 18 March 1970, the applicant was discharged accordingly.