RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 25 OCTOBER 2005
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050002327
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. James Anderholm | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. Jose Martinez | |Member |
| |Ms. LaVerne Douglas | |Member |
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 under honorable conditions discharge be
upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states since his discharge in 1977 he has become a
productive and outstanding citizen. In August 1980, he received an
Associate of Arts degree, while working a full time job and attending
classes at night. He has worked for the Veterans Administration Medical
Center since May 1979, and received his 30-years of Federal Government
service pin. He was promoted a full grade this year. He is now working as
a Program Support Assistant in the area of primary care, and feels he is
doing a good job. He remarried in November 1991, and his wife continues to
encourage and challenge him. He has a beautiful 12 year old daughter who
is doing well in school.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation
from Active Duty), a copy of his Associates Degree, a clearance report from
the Puerto Rico Police Department, Letters of Commendation, as well as
letters and certificates of appreciation.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant was initially inducted into the Army of the United States
on
27 September 1972, and was honorably discharged on 11 September 1975, for
immediate reenlistment in the Regular Army. He served in Germany from
March 1973 to September 1974, and in Panama from October 1974 to September
1975.
2. Between August 1975 and August 1977, he was punished on five occasions
under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for
failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty,
disobeying a lawful order, being absent without leave (AWOL), being
derelict in the performance of his duties, and for the possession of
marijuana.
3. On 5 October 1977, the applicant was convicted by a special court-
martial of communicating a threat to a superior noncommissioned officer (2
specifications), being disrespectful to a superior noncommissioned officer,
disobeying a lawful order (2 specifications) and being derelict in the
performance of his duty by failing to remain awake while guarding his
vehicle. His sentence included reduction to Private E-1, and 45 days of
hard labor without confinement.
4. The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to discharge
him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for
unsuitability. He was advised of his rights and the options available to
him. His commander stated that the applicant was being recommended for
elimination from the service before the expiration of his term of service
for unsuitability because of personal problems and his apathetic attitude.
5. The applicant, after consulting with counsel, acknowledged that he
understood the basis for his commander’s actions and waived consideration
of his case by a board officers, personal appearance before a board of
officers, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. He
acknowledged that he understood that he could expect to encounter
substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general or under honorable
conditions discharge was issued to him. He further acknowledged that he
understood that if he received an undesirable discharge he may encounter
substantial prejudice in civilian life, and may be ineligible for many or
all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.
7. The appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s
separation and the issuance of a general discharge.
8. On 19 October 1977, the applicant was discharged under honorable
conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13.
His DD Form 214 indicates he has 2 years, 11 months and 15 days of active
service and 10 days of lost time.
9. Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, then in effect, set forth the
policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel
for unfitness and unsuitability. It provided, in pertinent part, for
discharge due to unsuitability because of apathy a displayed lack of
appropriate interest and/or an inability to expend effort constructively.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 also states that an honorable discharge is a
separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when
the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly
inappropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing
argument in support of his request. His honorable period of prior service,
his successful completion of tours of duty in Germany and Panama, in
addition to his promotion to pay grade E-4, clearly indicates that the
applicant was capable of fully honorable service.
2. The fact that the applicant has now come to realize the consequence of
his less than honorable discharge, and his contention that he has been a
productive and outstanding citizen, has earned an Associate Degree and has
been an excellent employee for 30 years, have been noted. However, none of
those issues outweighs the seriousness of his conduct while in the military
and does not, in this case, provide an adequate basis to grant relief as a
matter of equity.
3. The applicant’s discharge was accomplished in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations. 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 that
requirement.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___JA___ __JM ___ __LD ___ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Board determined that 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.
____ James Anderholm_______
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20050002327 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON |YYYYMMDD |
|DATE BOARDED |20051025 |
|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. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017222C070206
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge to honorable. On 7 November 1978, the applicant's unit commander recommended his elimination from the Army, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, due to misconduct (civil conviction). On 2 March 1979, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant's discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for civil court conviction, and directed his reduction...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023971
On 18 February 1975, the company commander notified the applicant that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unfitness. He requested many times for a discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050007312C070206
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant is requesting upgrade of his discharge based on good post-service conduct and he has provided evidence of post-service achievement or good conduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008766
The applicant states, in effect: * he entered the Army at the age of 17 with the consent of his parents; his purpose was to serve his country and become a model Soldier * after initial training he was assigned to Fort Ord, CA and, after 14 months, had been promoted to specialist/E-4 * he learned his girlfriend was pregnant and, because he was not permitted to take leave, on an emotional, immature impulse, he left his place of duty for 15 days to go see her * he returned to face his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022879
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge. The Soldier's written request would include an acknowledgement that the Soldier understood if his or her request for discharge were accepted, the Soldier could be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. At the time, an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013451
The applicant's military records include documentation indicating he was a target of racial harassment on 9 July 1976 while stationed at Fort Carson, CO. 8. On 20 October 1976, the applicant was advised by his unit commander that he was recommending his separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. b. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007018
His immediate commander subsequently initiated separation action against him, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, by reason of unsuitability. There is no evidence in his available record, and he did not provide any evidence, that shows while serving on active duty he was treated for, or diagnosed with, any mental/medical condition/disorder that permanently prevented him from performing his assigned duties, was found to be unfitting, or required referral to a medical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022775
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. (4) Because of the applicant's inability to effect an adequate adjustment to the military, it was recommended that he be considered for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 (Unsuitability). The applicant contends that his discharge under other than honorable conditions should be upgraded because he had approximately 4 years of prior honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027935
On 9 February 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 and ordered that the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009675
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 November 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090009675 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.