IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 22 March 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110019700
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 reconsideration of his request for an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable.
2. The applicant states the Justice Department advised him to resubmit his application based on current laws and reiterates that:
* his discharge is unjust due to extreme prejudice and entrapment
* rumors were passed around the facility concerning his sexuality to ward off any witnesses who would testify on his behalf
* during his proceedings his defense lawyer discovered false evidence was presented
* his lawyer asked him if he wanted her to bring these allegations forward in his case but he did not want such things brought out
* because of his mental state, he went along with his lawyer's recommendation to accept his discharge
* he was devastated by the separation processing and did not realize he could request reassignment
* if he had known that such tactics were being implemented he would have addressed them
* after his discharge he sought help and the Department of Veterans Affairs informed him of the various programs available to assist him in rebuilding and transitioning back into society
3. The applicant provides no additional evidence.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20100017352 on 4 January 2011.
2. The applicant's request for reconsideration based on advice received from the Department of Justice constitutes new argument.
3. With the exception of the applicant's request for reconsideration based on current laws on the advice of the Justice Department, his statements are verbatim of his prior application.
4. The applicant served on active duty from 20 January 1981 through 5 April 1995. He was promoted to sergeant first class on 1 July 1991.
5. On 27 October 1994, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for signing a false official document (two specifications), making a false official statement, wrongfully obtaining telephone services, and larceny.
6. On 3 January 1995, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (commission of a serious offense).
7. On 16 February 1995, a board of officers found the applicant had committed misconduct (commission of a serious offense) and recommended his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.
8. On 24 March 1995, the separation authority approved the findings and directed the applicant's discharge with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 5 April 1995 accordingly.
9. The applicant has provided no evidence or documentation that the Department of Justice reviewed his case or recommended his submission of a request for reconsideration of his application by the ABCMR.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. Chapter 14 sets forth the policy and procedures for separating members for misconduct, including for the commission of a serious offense. The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, the separation authority could direct a general discharge if such were merited by the member's overall record.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because it was unjust due to extreme prejudice and entrapment. With the exception of the applicant's claim that he was advised by the Justice Department to submit a request for reconsideration based on current laws, the applicant has not provided any additional evidence or argument that was not previously considered by the ABCMR.
2. He has provided no evidence to support his contention that anyone at the Department of Justice reviewed his case or recommended his submission of a request for reconsideration of the 4 January 2011 ABCMR decision.
3. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to warrant a reevaluation and reversal of the prior ABCMR decision.
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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20100017352 on 4 January 2011.
____________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) AR20110019700
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110019700
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017352
Accordingly, the applicant was separated with a general discharge on 5 April 1995 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct. There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005847
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 10 February 1987 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (abuse of illegal drugs). Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. _________xxxx__________ 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004531
She waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a GD. On 30 May 1996, after reviewing the discharge packet and the board proceedings, the separation authority directed her separation under the provisions Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for serious misconduct with issuance of a GD. Although a UOTHC discharge would normally have been appropriate, an administrative separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010861
The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. On 14 March 1995, he was notified by his immediate commander that discharge action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct commission of a serious offense. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110007868
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable with a corresponding separation code. This regulation states the reason for discharge based on separation code "JKF" is "misconduct" and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(1). His record of service included one general court-martial conviction for marijuana offenses.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008717
The applicant states his military record should have resulted in him being issued an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Table 3-1 included a list of the RA RE codes: a. RE-1 applies to Soldiers completing their term of active service who are considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012845
On 12 May 2006, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense with an under honorable conditions characterization of service. On 24 May 2006, the applicant was accordingly discharged. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000205
On 30 January 2013, the applicant's battalion commander recommended approval of the applicant's discharge with a general discharge. On 11 December 2013, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his general discharge. The evidence shows his misconduct and conviction by a court-martial during his period of active duty from May 2009 to March 2013 diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012684
On 16 January 1996, he was discharged under honorable conditions (general) in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. His misconduct diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge and he has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument...
ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120006644
On 18 January 2012, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant contends the administrative separation board as outlined by military legal counsel was illegal. Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: Online application, dated (120320); Memorandum, Request for Reconsideration of...