RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 1 March 2007
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060011246
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.
X
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 reconsideration of her previous request to upgrade her discharge.
2. The applicant states that she first served in the National Guard and then served her full enlistment in the Regular Army. She goes on to state that she received her college benefits and her unemployment benefits for that service and was prepared to reenlist at the time she was discharged. She continues by stating that she was planning on making the Army a career and wishes that she could turn back the hands of time and not make the stupid mistake she made. She further states that she was told at the time that her discharge would be upgraded after 2 years and she has lived with this mistake for 26 years and believes that she has suffered enough.
3. The applicant provides three character references with her application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20050005633, on 1 November 2005.
2. The applicant enlisted in the New York Army National Guard on 25 April 1975 and served until she enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 November 1976 for a period of 4 years and training as a fabric repairman.
3. She successfully completed her training at Fort Lee, Virginia and remained assigned there as a physical activities specialist. She was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 March 1978.
4. On 12 August 1978, she was transferred to Germany for duty as a canvas repairman. On 21 September 1979, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being disrespectful in language towards a superior noncommissioned officer, for behaving with disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer (her commander), and for two specifications of disobeying a lawful order from her commander. Her punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 (suspended for 90 days), a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 90 days), extra duty, and restriction.
5. The facts and circumstances surrounding her administrative discharge are not present in the available records because they were dispatched to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Indianapolis, Indiana on 30 April 1981. However, the available records show that on 19 June 1980, the commander denied her award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and action was initiated on 31 July 1980 to separate her from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct homosexual acts moral or professional dereliction.
6. On 7 November 1980, she was discharged under other than honorable conditions at Fort Dix, New Jersey, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33A(3), for misconduct Homosexual Acts Moral or Professional Dereliction. She had served 3 years, 11 months and 15 days of active service during her current enlistment.
7. The three character references submitted by the applicant with her application are from a physician, an attorney, and an office business manager who all indicate that the applicant is a responsible citizen.
8. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14, paragraph 14-33a(3), provides for discharge due to other acts of misconduct because of homosexual acts. While an honorable or general discharge may be issued, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. There are not now, nor have there ever been any automatic provisions for the upgrade of such discharges.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicants separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Without having the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed her characterization of service was commensurate with her overall record of service. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
2. The Board has considered the new evidence submitted by the applicant and commends the applicant for her post-service conduct. However, when compared to her record of undistinguished service, that in itself is not sufficient to warrant an upgrade of her discharge for misconduct.
3. 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 FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__X____ __X ___ ___X___ 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050005633, dated 1 November 2005.
______X________
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR20060011246
SUFFIX
RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070301
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(UOTHC)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
1980/11/07
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR635-200/CH14 . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
MISCONDUCT
BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.144.6000
626/A60.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005633C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 November 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050005633 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 applicant was ordered to active duty on 20 February 1976 for training and was released from active duty on 4 September 1976. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024145
On 10 February 1981, her immediate commander notified her of his intent to initiate separation action against her in accordance with chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for misconduct. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum, dated 20 September 2011, Subject: Correction of Military Records Following Repeal of Section 654 of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019165
Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the reason for discharge was "homosexual acts." Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. _______ _ X_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011144
The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness memorandum, subject: Correction of Military Records Following Repeal of Section 654 of Title 10, U.S. Code, dated 20 September 2011, provides policy guidance for Service Discharge Review Boards (DRB's) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR's) to follow when taking action on applications from former service members discharged under DADT or prior policies. When appropriate, Soldiers separated due to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000895
The applicant requests that her under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable and the reason for discharge be changed to read for the "convenience of the government." The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that she was discharged under the procedures of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33a(3), under conditions other than honorable on 21 May 1976. There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003555
During this confrontation, the applicant told COL Cxx that he could not counsel her because he was not in her chain of command. However, her record contains a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that shows she was discharged on 27 February 2007, under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraph 4-2b, by reason of unacceptable behavior, and she received an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017015
Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) memorandum, dated 20 September 2011, subject: Correction of Military Records Following Repeal of Section 654 of Title 10, U.S. Code, provides policy guidance for Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to follow when taking action on applications from former service members discharged under "DADT" or prior policies. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010252
On 5 September 1980, the separation authority approved the board's recommendation for discharge of the applicant and directed the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-33b, for misconduct based upon frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authority with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. While there is no evidence of record that shows the applicant was involved in any incidents of a...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060005784
Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the term of service under review and considering the analysts recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was inequitable based on the overall length of the applicant's service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge, and her post service accomplishments. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the...
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090006958
Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 16 April 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 15, paragraph 15-3b, AR 635-200, by reason of homosexual admission with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully...