IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 5 April 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110020620
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 his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD) as a matter of clemency.
2. The applicant states he was originally being separated for being overweight which would have resulted in an HD. However, while this paperwork was being processed his commander was notified he was 3 months behind on loan payments which resulted in his commander changing his discharge to misconduct. He states regardless of the reason he was discharged, he just wanted to explain the reasons for the discharge and request clemency.
3. The applicant provides a self-authored statement, college transcripts, and class completion certificates in support of the application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 March 1994, and he was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty 71L (Administrative Specialist). His record shows he was advanced to the rank of specialist/E-4 on 1 October 1995 and this is the highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty. His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.
2. The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants separation processing are not in the record. The record does contain a properly-constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that identifies the authority and reason for the applicants discharge.
3. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on 18 October 1999, the date of his discharge, shows he completed 5 years, 7 months, and 3 days of creditable active military service. It also shows he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c (Commission of a Serious Offense), Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), by reason of Misconduct and that he received a GD.
4. On 27 May 2011, the Army Discharge Review Board, after reviewing the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge, his military records, and all other available evidence, determined the applicants discharge was proper and equitable and voted unanimously not to change the character and reason for his discharge.
5. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave.
6. Paragraph 14-3 of Army Regulation 635-200 contains guidance on characterization of service for members separated under chapter 14. It states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. The separation authority may direct a GD if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. It further states a characterization of honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be inappropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants request to upgrade his GD to an HD as a matter of clemency has been carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. The applicant's separation was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.
3. By regulation, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct. Clearly, the length and honorable nature of the applicant's overall record of service was the basis for receiving a GD instead of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. It is equally clear the applicant's record of misconduct diminished his overall record of service below that meriting a fully HD. Although the applicants post-service accomplishments are noteworthy, absent any evidence of error or injustice in the discharge process, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support an upgrade of his discharge as a matter of clemency in this case.
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) AR20110020620
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110020620
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000524
d. The analyst before the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) stated the evidence in his case supported a conclusion his UOTHC discharge was too harsh, and as a result was inequitable. After considering all of the evidence before it, the administrative separation board, by unanimous vote, recommended the applicant be separated from the Army with a UOTHC discharge for his wrongful distribution of .17 grams of JWH-018. The separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002285
On 17 July 1996, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation action for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and directed the applicant receive a GD. There is no evidence indicating the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Therefore, absent evidence of error or injustice in the discharge process, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024041
The applicant requests his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 7 July 1995, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, by reason of misconduct (commission of a serious offense) with a GD. Therefore, absent evidence of error or injustice in the discharge process, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013239
The applicant requests that the general discharge (GD) be removed from his records or upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 17 December 2005, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation action for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and directed the applicant receive a GD. However, there is insufficient evidence to support his claim of injustice.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022802
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 28 March 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation action for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and directed the applicant receive a GD. There is no evidence indicating the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024858
The applicant requests his character of service, general (under honorable conditions), be changed or upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008698
The applicant requests his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 29 January 1990, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense. There is no evidence indicating the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006267
There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel. Therefore, absent evidence of error or injustice in the discharge process, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001384
On 19 February 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and directed the applicant receive a GD. There is no evidence indicating the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Therefore, absent evidence of error or injustice in the discharge process, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014558
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 16 July 1993, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, by reason of misconduct (pattern of misconduct) with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Although the applicant's record of service was generally honorable, his record of misconduct, which included two DUI offenses within a six-month period, clearly diminished the overall quality...