IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 7 October 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080011836
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states that there is no documentation in his records which show a pattern of misconduct. He continues that he never disrespected anyone, never fought with anyone, never got arrested for driving while intoxicated, and never went absent without leave (AWOL). He believes he was targeted.
3. The applicant then gives his account of why he was late to formation on several occasions, why he was not at fault for those incidents, and how he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for those incidents.
4. The applicant provides documents which he lists in his application in support of his application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicants military personnel records consist primarily of his enlistment contract and his separation document (DD Form 214). His records do not contain any record of NJP or his discharge packet.
2. The applicants DD Form 214 shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 August 2004, was awarded the military occupational specialty of motor transport operator, and was promoted to pay grade E-3. He served in Iraq from 25 October 2005 to 15 October 2006.
3. On 12 July 2007, the applicant was given a general discharge for a pattern of misconduct.
4. 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, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
5. On 21 May 2008, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request to upgrade his discharge.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. Without the applicants discharge packet, it is impossible to determine what formed the basis for his discharge.
2. While the applicant argues his innocence for the NJPs he received, there is no evidence or indication that the NJPs were the primary basis for his discharge, or the sole basis for his discharge.
3. If the applicant had valid reasons for his tardiness, and if he accepted NJPs for that tardiness, and those NJPs formed the sole basis for his discharge, then the question must be asked why didnt the applicant contest the NJPs and discharge by submitting documentation to show the reasons for his tardiness at that time.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is insufficient basis for granting the applicants request.
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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
_________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.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080011836
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080011836
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001208
Because of this continued chest pain, the patient should be considered for a Medical Evaluation Board. The notes further show the applicant was referred to the MEB Clinic, as soon as possible, for evaluation of his acute myopericarditis. h. The purpose of counseling is develop Soldiers; however, his chain of command misused counseling statements by issuing more than one counseling statement for the same incident. Army Regulation 40-501 states that a history of heart disease, to include...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019401
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded. His record contains a Fort Riley (FR) Form 1806 (Training Progress Notes), completed on 7 June 1982 by the applicant's team commander, which essentially states: * the team commander was recommending the applicant for elimination under the provisions of chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct), Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) due to frequent acts of...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501341
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Specification: In that Postal Clerk Third Class M_ A. S_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, FISC Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on active duty, did on or about 0715 040830 without authority absent himself from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014025
He states he was never notified of a chapter action and was wrongfully discharged under Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 14. He provides the following: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) * Memorandum, Subject: Appearance Before a PEB, with a request for Temporary Duty (TDY) orders and instructions, dated 22 June 2004 * Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report...
USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00115
MD01-00115 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001031, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The results of this action was that I arrived at work 55 minutes late. The NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004367C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states, in effect, that he was never given a reason why he was discharged from the service. The applicant's records show that he received four Article 15s and had two instances of AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004494
On 18 April 2002, the company commander notified the applicant of contemplated separation with a general discharge under honorable conditions due to a pattern of misconduct. The company commander recommended a general discharge, the chain of command concurred, and the separation authority directed the issuance of a general discharge. Accordingly, on 28 May 2002, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, due to a pattern of misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003715C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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. The applicant’s allegations of discrimination and racism have been noted; however, they are not supported by any evidence submitted by the applicant or the evidence of record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003513
Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives) and reasons for the separation of members from active military service and the SPD codes to be used for these stated reasons. However, his contentions are not supported by the evidence of record. The evidence of record shows he accepted NJP for failure to go to his appointed place of duty from 12 November until 16 November 1981.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021893
On 9 December 2009, the applicants commander informed the applicant of his intent to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, for patterns of misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The applicant's overall record of service was considered and resulted in the issuance of...