Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016242
Original file (20090016242.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  18 March 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090016242 


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 upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged for a pattern of misconduct.  He states he only had one incident of returning late from being in town for which he received an Article 15 that also reduced him rank.  He believes that any other actions that were used against him were the result of a conflict between himself and his company commander over a female Soldier they were both involved with.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to 
timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 12 July 1985, completed training, and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 36C (Wire Systems Installer).

3.  On 2 June 1986 a Bar to Reenlistment action was imposed against him.  No documentation of this action is of record except a notation on the applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II) that shows the entry "Not Recommended for Further Service 860602."

4.  On 19 September 1986 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for two specifications of failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and failing to follow a lawful order to sign in off an overnight pass at the prescribed time.

5.  The Bar to Reenlistment action was reviewed on 9 October 1987.  A follow on notation on his DA Form 2-1 shows the entry "Bar to Reenl [Reenlistment] Reviewed; Not Recm [Recommended] for Removal (871009)."

6.  The specific facts and circumstances of the applicant's discharge processing are not contained in the available records.  However, his records contain a duly constituted DD Form 214 that shows on 23 December 1987 he was discharged under honorable conditions in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct based on a pattern of misconduct.

7.  Army Regulation 15–185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  Paragraph 2-9 states that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. The ABCMR will decide cases based on the evidence of record.  It is not an investigative body.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant states his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged for a pattern of misconduct.  He had only one incident of returning late from being in town for which he received punishment.  He believes that any other actions that were 
used against him were the result of a conflict between himself and his company commander over a female Soldier they were both involved with.


2.  The applicant's official record does not contain and the applicant has not provided any documentation to explain the reason for the initial Bar to Reenlistment, the continuation of the bar, or the procedural documentation for his Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 separation processing.

3.  However, there is evidence that the applicant was barred from reenlistment and accepted NJP for three offenses.  This record would support a separation for a pattern of misconduct.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, 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.  The regulations governing this Board’s operation require that the discharge process must be presumed to have been in accordance with applicable law and regulations unless the applicant can provide evidence to the contrary.

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)                                         AR20090016242



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090016242



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018292

    Original file (20140018292.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 31 March 1987, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations) for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. Subsequent to the applicant's acknowledgement, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200 due to misconduct – pattern of misconduct. Consistent with the chain of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007642

    Original file (20070007642.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was counseled on 6 May 1987, for failure to go to formation. On 18 November 1987, the applicant was notified that she was being recommended for a bar to reenlistment and her CO cited her numerous counselings, which included her poor performance; delinquency on debt payments; nonpayment of debts; failure to keep her room up to standards; and punishment under the UCMJ as a basis for the bar to reenlistment. A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007218C070208

    Original file (20040007218C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The commander cited the applicant’s UCMJ actions, his performance counseling, and his relief for cause evaluation report as the basis for the action. It notes that a bar to reenlistment denies reenlistment to Soldiers whose immediate separation under administrative procedures is not warranted, but whose reentry into or service beyond his or her scheduled separation with the Active Army is not in the best interest of the military service. The applicant’s statement that his separation...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008459

    Original file (20070008459.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. On 3 March 1987, the applicant was counseled regarding the three types of discharges an individual may receive in an administrative separation action. Considering the nature of his offense it appears that the applicant's general discharge...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004505

    Original file (20120004505.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 8 June 1987, following counseling, the applicant submitted a voluntary written request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations). On 6 July 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed he be given an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Further, it appears the applicant's discharge reflects his overall record of military service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004889

    Original file (20130004889.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 November 1986, the applicant was notified of his pending separation for patterns of misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b. There is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military terms of service. His record of service included adverse counseling statements, a bar to reenlistment, and three instances of NJP.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | AR20070006481C071029

    Original file (AR20070006481C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 April 1986, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12b, due to acts or patterns of misconduct. Accordingly, on 10 June 1986, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 6350-200, chapter 14-12b, for misconduct, due to a pattern of misconduct, with a General Discharge Certificate. A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever applied to the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006802

    Original file (20080006802.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that the reason for his discharge be changed from a pattern of misconduct. On 1 May 1987, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge, waived any rehabilitation requirements, and directed that the applicant be issued a general discharge. Accordingly, on 15 May 1987, the applicant was separated with a general discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017289

    Original file (20080017289.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 March 1991, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c of AR 635-200 for misconduct with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Contrary to the applicant's contention that he was discharged because he was falsely charged with living with the wife of his sergeant, the evidence of record shows that the applicant amassed several instances of NJP throughout his military service for various offenses ranging from minor...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015461

    Original file (20080015461.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 April 1987, the separation authority approved the waiver of the rehabilitative requirements and the applicant’s discharge, under the provisions of chapter 14 of AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct, and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 12 May 1987. The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with Army standards of...