| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | ||
| Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable, or at least a general discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he has been in and out of prison due to drug and alcohol use since his discharge in 1982 and that he was paroled from prison in 1999 and is finally getting on the right path without the use of mind altering drugs. He further states that he is being baptized in the Catholic faith and is getting married. He also states that he is skilled as an electrician and has been working for 4 years. He continues by stating that he was not absent for 30 days as he was charged and that there were extenuating circumstances in his case. He would now like to repair the mistakes of his past by having his discharge upgraded.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 27 December 1979 for a period of 3 years and training as a telecommunications center operator. He completed his training and was transferred to Fort Hood, Texas, on 19 May 1980. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 27 June 1980.
On 6 February 1981, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
The applicant's commander also initiated a recommendation to bar him from reenlistment. He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant's disciplinary record, his failure to respond to repeated counseling sessions and his involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature. The applicant declined the opportunity to submit a statement in his own behalf and the appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment.
On 10 March 1981, NJP was imposed against him for stealing a lighter belonging to another soldier and for violating visitation policies by visiting a female's room. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
On 11 June 1981, the applicant's commander submitted a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. However, the brigade commander disapproved the request and directed that the applicant be given a rehabilitative transfer.
On 18 November 1981, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 October to 30 October 1981. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and a forfeiture of pay. He was transferred to the Army Retraining Brigade at Fort Riley, Kansas, to undergo his confinement.
On 22 January 1982, the applicant's commander at the Retraining Brigade submitted a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities. He cited the applicant's disciplinary record, poor performance and conduct, failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions and his demonstrated lack of desire to return to duty as the basis for his recommendation.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 3 February 1982, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 8 February 1982, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. He had served 1 year, 11 months and 20 days of total active service and had 52 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct. Specific categories include minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and/or military authorities, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, drug abuse, and desertion or absence without leave. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. Additionally, there was not then, nor is there now, any provisions for an automatic upgrade of such a 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 or unjust. 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 procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. The board has noted the applicant’s contentions; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his overall record of undistinguished service.
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
_mkp ___ __wtm___ __teo ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003088025 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/07/29 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1982/02/08 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | MISCONDUCT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 626 | 144.6000/A60.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072054C070403
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: There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029871
There is no evidence in the available records to show the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Paragraph 3-7b of Army Regulation 635-200 also provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004137C070205
Thomas Ray | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The request indicated that the applicant alleged that he had served in the Army from 1980 to 1982 and that he had received a general discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058199C070420
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010104
On 24 August 1981, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for misconduct - frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. On 1 September 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110006810
On 25 August 1981, the separation/convening authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and ordered the applicant's discharged under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct and directed he be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012456
Counsel states: a. The applicant remained assigned to this unit until he was reassigned to the Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley, KS, on 18 September 1981. c. Paragraph 4 of the ROP shows the results of the summary court-martial (SCM) the applicant received on 16 September 1981. Two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) show the applicant was placed in confinement on 16 September 1981, was present for duty on 9 October 1981, and the form was sent to the Commander, 5th Unit, Retraining Brigade.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011619
The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his application. c. A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Based on the foregoing, there is insufficient basis to upgrade the applicant's discharge to an honorable discharge or to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013890C071029
The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice that occurred on 15 September 1982, the date she was notified by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) it had determined, based on her military records and all other available evidence, she had been properly discharged. On 29 October 1980, the applicant's unit commander notified her he was recommending that she be discharged from the Army under the provision of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, chapter 14. On 25 November...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022985
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to honorable or general under honorable conditions. The immediate commander remarked that the applicant was sent to the retraining brigade to receive correctional training and treatment necessary to return him to duty as a well-trained Soldier with an improved attitude and ability. On 12 August 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army...