Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029382
Original file (20100029382.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		

		BOARD DATE:	  28 June 2011 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100029382 


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 a change in her character of service.

2.  The applicant states she wants to reenter the military to serve her country.

3.  The applicant provides a one-page self-authored letter.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 November 2001.  She completed basic combat and advanced individual training and she was awarded military occupational specialty 75B (Personnel Administrative Specialist).  The highest rank/grade she attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3.

2.  On 18 August 2003, records show the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for being derelict in the performance of her duties.

3.  The applicant was counseled by her chain of command on 20 separate occasions for her unsatisfactory attitude, driving violations, and duty performance.

4.  On 18 December 2003, the applicant was notified of initiation of separation action against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.

5.  Records show the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the possible effects of a discharge, and of the rights available to her.

6.  On 8 January 2004, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.

7.  On 23 January 2004, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) she was issued confirms she was separated with a general discharge under honorable conditions and she completed 2 years, 2 months, and 4 days of creditable active military service with no lost time.

8.  On 28 May 2009, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change in the character and/or reason of her discharge.  The applicant's request was denied on 24 March 2010.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander's judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for a change in her character of service was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support her request.

2.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  Based on her record of indiscipline which included nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 and 20 counseling statements, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standard of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

4.  Although the applicant is apologetic for her actions, all available evidence shows she was properly and equitably discharged.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable character of service.

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 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)                                         AR20100029382



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100029382



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002235

    Original file (20150002235.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of her general discharge to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120018167

    Original file (20120018167.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests her general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). The record also contains various other incident reports and statements: * two statements related to her disrespectful language toward medical personnel * six statements related to her disrespectful language and/or attitude toward her shift supervisor * seven statements for disrespectful language toward other personnel in positions of authority over her 6. The applicant received 4 NJP's, 4 official...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010094

    Original file (20140010094.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Given her medically related discharge and over 181 days of active duty service, she should have been given an honorable discharge for the convenience of the Army. The DD Form 214 she was issued confirms in – * Item 12c (Record of Service – Net Active Service This Period), she was credited with completing 6 months and 16 days of active military service * Item 23 (Type of Separation), she was released from active duty * Item 24 (Character of Service), her service was characterized as "Entry...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001715

    Original file (20120001715.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of her general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge (HD). The applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains four DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Form) issued on the following dates for the reasons indicated: * 20 July 1992 - attitude towards taking the APFT * 3 August 1992 - failing the APFT * 9 December 1992 - refusing to take two record APFTs * 30 December 1992 - failing the APFT a second time and possible...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002291

    Original file (20140002291.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that the reentry eligibility (RE) code on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed from a 3 to a 1. d. Army Regulation 635-200 further states, in pertinent part, that prior to discharge or release from active duty individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The evidence of record shows the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010349

    Original file (20140010349.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She was advised that she would be subject to separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance should she fail a second record APFT. On 6 November 1998, the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command notified the applicant of her administrative removal from the promotion selection list based on her cancellation of ANCOC due to APFT failure. Military Personnel Message Number 93-164, dated 20 April 1993,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008962

    Original file (20100008962.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Block 24 (Character of Service) of the DD Form 214 issued to her at the time shows that she received an "Under Honorable Conditions" characterization of service. Block 25 (Separation Authority) shows that she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. There is no evidence in the available record that indicates she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009272

    Original file (20120009272.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DD Form 214 she was issued shows she was released from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, by reason of entry level status performance and conduct with an uncharacterized service. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 3 states a separation will be described as entry level with uncharacterized service if the Soldier has less than 180 days of continuous active duty service at the time...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120018760

    Original file (20120018760.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 19 May 1983, she was notified by her immediate commander that discharge action was being initiated against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. There is no indication she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013260

    Original file (20140013260.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests her uncharacterized separation from the Regular Army (RA) be changed to an honorable separation. On 11 May 1983, she received formal counseling and she voluntarily elected to separate from active duty service due to pregnancy pursuant to Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 8. Service members separated for pregnancy while in an entry-level status were to receive an entry-level (i.e., uncharacterized) separation.