Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091546C070212
Original file (2003091546C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied




RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 19 FEBRUARY 2004
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003091546


         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.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Ms. Gale J. Thomas Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond J. Wagner Chairperson
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer Member
Mr. Robert L. Duecaster Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:


1. The applicant requests that his records be corrected by updating his discharge.

2. The applicant states that his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

3. The applicant provides a copy of his military records in support of his request, but submits no other evidence which supports his contention that his discharge should be upgraded.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 September 1997, for a period of 3 years.

2. On 24 October 2001, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order by a commissioned officer by violating restriction, and for contacting his wife when there was a no contact order in force. His punishment was reduction, forfeiture, extra duty and restriction.

3. The applicant was arrested by civilian authorities in Fairbanks, Alaska, and charged with domestic assault. He was sentenced to a mandated surcharge or
8 hours of community service work. He was ordered to enroll in and complete the “Alternate to Violence Program”, and to provide proof of completion to the court no later than 1 April 2002.

4. The applicant received numerous counseling statements for his performance, driving in excess of the posted speed limit, attendance and attitude at a Microsoft class, breaking restriction, and disobeying orders.

5. The applicant was notified by his company commander that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct. He was recommending that the applicant receive a general under honorable conditions discharge.

6. On 21 December 2001, the applicant acknowledged that he had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for a pattern of misconduct. He waived his right to have his case considered by an administrative separation board, waived appearance before an administrative separation board, requested legal counsel, and indicated he would be providing a statement in his own behalf.

7. On 21 December 2001, the applicant’s commander recommended that he be separated prior to his expiration of term of service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct.

8. On 28 December 2001, the intermediate commander recommended that the applicant be separated under the above cited regulation, and that his service be characterized as general.

9. On 2 January 2002, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct, and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

10. On 17 January 2002, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions (general), under the provisions of the above cited regulation. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates he had
4 years and 4 months of active service.

11. On 28 Mary 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

12. 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, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS :

1. 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.

2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3. The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.



4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, 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.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ RJW __ __ MHM _ __ RLD __ DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable 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.





                  __Raymond J. Wagner___
                   CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID AR2003091546
SUFFIX
RECON YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED 20040219
TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 110.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007972C070205

    Original file (20060007972C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    His DD Form 214 for the period ending 26 May 2004 shows he was discharged with a separation code of “JKA” (Misconduct - Pattern of Misconduct) and issued an RE code of RE-4. 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. The applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending 26 May 2004 shows he was discharged with a separation code of “JKA” (Misconduct -...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069360C070402

    Original file (2002069360C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 23 March 1994, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct with a general discharge. On 30 June 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130008888

    Original file (AR20130008888.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests to upgrade the characterization of his service from under other than honorable to fully honorable. The record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. However, at the time of discharge, the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082350C070215

    Original file (2002082350C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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: He further stated that his overall record of service should be considered and asserted that his discharge alone was sufficient punishment.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068270C070402

    Original file (2002068270C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chapter 14, establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Army regulations state that a soldier is in an entry level status if the soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(c), for misconduct – commission of a serious offense.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130007479

    Original file (AR20130007479.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and informed the applicant of his rights. On 27 February 2002, the separation authority, waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions discharge. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT The applicant provided a self authored statement dated 18 March 2013, copy of his DD Form 214 for the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079157C070215

    Original file (2002079157C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 24 July 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intention to initiate separation action under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b, Army Regulation 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. On 7 November 2001, the separation authority disapproved retaining the applicant for 6 months and directed...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063153C070421

    Original file (2001063153C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The ADRB determined that his discharge and the reasons therefore were proper and unanimously denied his request on 15 November 1996. The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03091984C070212

    Original file (03091984C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The VA informed him that he could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board or this Board for relief. On 21 May 2003, in an unanimous opinion, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge, stating that the board did not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086151C070212

    Original file (2003086151C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on his 4 year enlistment, the applicant’s scheduled separation date would have been established as 6 May 2002. 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. Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the service at the time and may process enlistment waivers for both the applicant’s RE code and his reason for...