IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 23 September 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080012346
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 he was an excellent Soldier and that he believed that he was under unfair leadership. He states that he was a sharpshooter and that he obtained a PT badge before he got to Fort Carson. He states that he is a model citizen and that he wants an education under the GI Bill.
3. The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. On 7 January 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in Atlanta, Georgia, in the pay grade of E-2. He successfully completed his training as a food service specialist.
2. The applicants records show that he was counseled on ten separate occasions between 29 June 2004 and 25 January 2005, for various reasons to include a lack of effort on his job performance, work ethics, lack of motivation; being absent without leave, failure to repair; failure to be at his appointed place of duty, and for failing the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). He was also counseled for failure to report for duty; insubordinate conduct towards a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer or petty officer; failure to obey an order or regulation; making false official statements; being drunk on duty; testing positive for cocaine; and for pending assault charges. Each time that he was counseled the applicant was told that if his conduct continued, action may be initiated to involuntarily separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, chapter 11, chapter 13 or chapter 14. He was also told that if he was involuntarily separated he could receive an honorable, a general under honorable condition or an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
3. On 4 April 2005, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12b, based on a pattern of misconduct. His commander cited previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs; incapacitation for proper performance of his duties; pending assault charges; failing to obey a direct order or regulation; failure to report to his place of duty on several occasions; missing formation on several occasions; and failing the APFT as the basis for the recommendation for discharge.
4. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 4 April 2005, waiving his right to consult with counsel and to submit a statement in his own behalf.
5. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
8 April 2005 and he directed the issuance of a general discharge. Accordingly, on 27 April 2005, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12b, based on a pattern of misconduct. He had completed 2 years, 3 months and 21 days of net active service and he was furnished a discharge under honorable conditions (general).
6. On 3 October 2006, the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and his application was denied on 7 November 2007.
7. 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. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
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 applicant's contentions have been noted. However, his contention that he was an excellent Soldier is not supported by the evidence of record. His records show that he was counseled on ten separate occasions as a result of various acts of misconduct. The fact that he has a desire to further his education through the use of the Montgomery GI Bill is not a basis for upgrading his discharge. As previously stated, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
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.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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) AR20080012346
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080012346
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130015136
On 6 November 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200 , Chapter 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. On 20 November 2006, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 7 August 2013, a DD Form 214, a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014318
The applicant requests correction of his reentry eligibility (RE) code from RE-3 to RE-1 so he can reenter military service. On 22 April 2009, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct a pattern of misconduct. The board recommended that he be separated for a pattern of misconduct and issued a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006588
He received a "success" rating from his rater in Physical Fitness and Military Bearing with the following bullet comments: * scored 245 on the last APFT * profile interferes with his MOS as an 11B2P b. Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 206th Field Artillery, 4th Infantry Division, Camp Taji, Iraq, memorandum, dated 17 August 2008, subject: Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) Investigation Findings and Recommendations, states the Commander, 1st...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015280
On 14 November 1994, he was discharged under honorable conditions (a general discharge) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct (patterns of misconduct). There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130012395
The applicant requests to upgrade the characterization of his service from under other than honorable conditions to fully honorable. On 22 August 2006, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of a general, under honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130003827
IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 27 September 2013 CASE NUMBER: AR20130003827 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. On 16 February 2011 the separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004199
On 11 August 2010, his commander notified him he was initiating action to separate him for a pattern of misconduct under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 14-12b. On 27 October 2010, the board found there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that he did have a pattern of misconduct and recommended he be discharged and issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200 states a Soldier is entitled to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012239
Records show he completed a medical examination on 26 February 2010; however, this report is not available. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. There is no evidence to show he could not perform his duties while on active duty and he was never referred for physical disability processing.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130013539
The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates that on 8 August 2000, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct, specifically for the following offenses: a. failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (FTRs); b. numerous derelictions of duty; c. failing to obey lawful written orders; d. willfully disobeying...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021324
The applicant's immediate commander notified him on 22 March 1994 of his intent to initiate separation action against the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct pattern of misconduct. The applicant's immediate commander recommended his separation from the Army on 22 March 1994, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct ...