RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 26 February 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070015257
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.
Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano
Director
Mr. Dean L. Turnbull
Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Ms. Linda D. Simmons
Chairperson
Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas
Member
Mr. John G. Heck
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, in effect, that his Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of BNC and the narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show they are favorable.
2. The applicant states that his unfavorable separation has limited his potential as a citizen and has eliminated his ability to serve in the Florida Army National Guard. He is physically able to serve his country as an Army National Guard Soldier; however, the separation code is preventing him from doing so. He respects the Army Discharge Review Boards (ADRBs) decision, but the offense he was accused of over 13 years ago was minor and he has paid the price for his immature decision.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his ADRB case decision.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant's military service records show that he was appointed as a Reserve Commissioned Officer of the United States Army in the rank of second lieutenant on 3 May 1985. He entered active duty on 25 September 1987 and continued to serve on active duty through a series of assignments as a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) officer.
2. On 1 May 1991, the applicant was promoted as a Reserve Commissioned Officer to the rank of captain.
3. The applicant's military service records show that he received an Administrative Memorandum of Reprimand for being involved in a verbal altercation with a service member's wife, which escalated into a physical altercation. The altercation took place at the Army and Air Force Exchange Services (AAFES) Movie Theater, Berchtesgaden, Germany on 1 June 1993.
4. Message 0212362 May 96 with the Subject: Resign ILO Elimination, from the Commander, Personnel Command, Alexandria, Virginia, states that the applicant had requested to resign his commission in lieu of elimination action taken against him and that the request was approved.
5. In the message it was directed that the applicant would receive an honorable discharge for misconduct, moral or professional, and that the discharge would be completed not later than 14 days. On 9 May 1996, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the message.
6. The applicant's discharge packet was not included in his records. However, his DD Form 214 shows that he received an honorable discharge on
31 May 1996, with a SPD code of BNC, which is assigned to individuals who are discharged for unacceptable conduct. He had completed a total of 8 years,
8 months, and 6 days of active federal service.
7. The applicant applied to the ADRB to change the narrative reason for his discharge on 10 January 2005. On 28 September 2005, ADRB reviewed the applicant's record and determined that his discharge was proper and equitable. Therefore, ADRB presumed regularity in the discharge process. On that basis the applicants request to change the narrative reason for his discharge was denied.
8. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator), Table
2-2, states that the SPD code BNC denotes resignation, unacceptable conduct.
9. Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), chapter
4, establishes policy and prescribes procedures for eliminating officers in the Active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interests of national security. It states, in pertinent part, that an officer identified for elimination may at any time during or prior to the final action in the elimination case, elect to submit a resignation in lieu of elimination.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends that his SPD code of BNC and the narrative reason for his separation should be corrected to allow him to enlist in the Florida Army National Guard.
2. There is no evidence or indication that there was an error or injustice, which caused the applicant to be discharged for unacceptable conduct. The evidence shows the applicant was involved in an altercation with a service member's wife, which is a cause for elimination.
3. The applicant was assigned the proper SPD of BNC, which denotes resignation, unacceptable conduct. The code and the reason for separation remains valid. Since the applicant was properly discharged, there is no reason to change his SPD code and the reason for separation.
4. The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for enlisting into the Army National Guard.
5. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must satisfactorily show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit sufficient evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__LDS__ __LMD_ _ __JGH__ 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.
____Linda D. Simmons__
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED
20080226
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055271C070420
The CG informed the applicant that he was required to show cause for his retention on active duty, under the provisions of paragraph 4-2, Army Regulation 600-8-24, based on his substandard duty performance and misconduct. It directed that the applicant be advised that his resignation in lieu of elimination was approved and that orders be published directing the applicant’s honorable discharge, under the provisions of chapter 4, Army Regulation 600-8-24, by reason of unacceptable conduct/...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000755
Specifically, he presents the following arguments: a. he was notified in the elimination memorandum that if he elected to submit his resignation or request discharge in lieu of elimination, he could be eligible for separation pay and could consult with his legal advisor and his finance and accounting office concerning entitlement to separation pay; b. he acknowledged notification of initiation of elimination action against him and requested resignation from the Army as well as a hearing by a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000728
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), Block 26 (Separation Code) and Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation). The applicant states he would like his DD Form 214 to show: * an SPD Code of "MBK" * a narrative reason for separation of "Completion of Active Service" 4. The applicant committed the offense of drunk driving and, under regulations then in effect, his narrative reason for separation was "Misconduct, Moral or...
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090019263
Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 635-120, by reason of unacceptable conduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of his service, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.
AF | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070000708
Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 30 June 2005, the Commander, United States Army Europe and Seventh Army, APO AE 09014, notified the applicant of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, by reason of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction (acts of personal misconduct as substantiated by an Article 15 dated 13 October 2004 and a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand). On 4 May 2006, the applicant voluntarily...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000894
The applicant states that the narrative reason for her separation was determined solely by the only adverse information in her records the unfavorable Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 6 October 1992 through 9 April 1993 that was subsequently appealed, deleted, and the rating period declared non-rated. The applicant provides a memorandum, dated 15 June 1995, from the Appeals and Corrections Branch, U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) with a memorandum for record...
ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070000708aC071031
Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 30 June 2005, the Commander, United States Army Europe and Seventh Army, APO AE 09014, notified the applicant of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, by reason of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction (acts of personal misconduct as substantiated by an Article 15 dated 13 October 2004 and a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand). Board Decision The discharge was: Proper...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017462
On 20 February 2008, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to change his narrative reason for separation. The applicant's resignation from the Army under the provisions of chapter 4, Army Regulation 600-8-24, in lieu of further elimination proceedings was voluntary, administratively correct, and in compliance with applicable regulations. Had he not resigned his commission, and since he provides no evidence or even a contention that he did not have the inappropriate...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007608
On 7 August 1980, the applicant's battalion commander initiated a recommendation for the applicant's elimination from the service in accordance with chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-100 (Personnel Separations - Officer Personnel) by reason of professional dereliction. On 1 December 1980, the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (now known as the U.S. Army Human Resources Command) approved the applicant's resignation in lieu of elimination for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction,...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080010809
Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? On 23 August 2002, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unacceptable Conduct", and the separation code is "BNC."