Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023617
Original file (20110023617.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  10 July 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110023617


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, in effect, a discharge upgrade.

2.  The applicant states:

* he never engaged in sexual acts with a minor
* he was never arrested, charged with, or convicted of sexual acts with a minor

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  With prior Regular Army (RA) and Reserve service, the applicant enlisted in the RA for 4 years on 26 February 2008.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 21W (Carpentry/Masonry Specialist).

2.  The applicant's record shows three periods of absence without leave (AWOL) totaling 36 days, one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to report on two occasions, and one summary court-martial (SCM) conviction for:

* 11 specifications of failure to report
* disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (NCO)
* disorderly conduct

3.  In June 2010, the applicant's commander initiated action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(1), for misconduct.  The commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

4.  The administrative discharge was approved and the applicant was discharged UOTHC on 8 July 2010.

5.  The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade and a change in his narrative reason for discharge.  The ADRB, after considering his case on 31 August 2011, denied his request.

6.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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, and convictions by civil authorities.  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 UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides guidance on characterization of service and states, in pertinent part:

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a states that an Honorable Discharge (HD) 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b states that a General Discharge (GD) is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an HD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for a discharge upgrade was carefully considered and should be denied.

2.  The applicant exhibited repeated acts of misconduct culminating in his conviction by a SCM.  Based on his poor disciplinary record, his discharge for misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 was appropriate.

3.  The applicant's service did not measure up to that required for an honorable or general discharge.

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)                                         AR20110023617



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110023617



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130000147

    Original file (AR20130000147.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 26 September 2007 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct (Civil Conviction), AR 635-200, Chapter 14, SEC II, JKB, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: Co F, 1st Bn, 1st SPWAR (T), Fort Bragg, NC f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 1 October 2001, 6 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 5 years, 11 months, 26 days h. Total Service: 14 years, 2 months, 3 days i. On 29 August 2007, the separation authority approved the findings...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008084C071029

    Original file (20070008084C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s discharge packet is not available. The applicant’s ADRB packet shows the applicant’s commander notified the applicant on 8 January 2001 of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130011970

    Original file (AR20130011970.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discharge received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 19 December 2011 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: B Co, 88th BSB, Fort Polk, LA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 19 November 2010, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 1 month, 1 day h. Total Service: 3 years, 8 months, 1 day i. The DD Form 214 indicates that on 19 December 2011, the applicant was discharged under the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001460C070206

    Original file (20050001460C070206.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel requests the applicant's discharge be upgraded to Honorable. Counsel states the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) already upgraded the applicant's discharge from Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) to General. Following an administrative separation board hearing at which the applicant testified, he was properly separated with a UOTHC discharge by reason of misconduct.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001460C070206

    Original file (20050001460C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel states the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) already upgraded the applicant's discharge from Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) to General. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the board of officers recommended the applicant be separated with a UOTHC discharge. Following an administrative separation board hearing at which the applicant testified, he was properly separated with a UOTHC discharge by reason of misconduct.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130000555

    Original file (AR20130000555.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 May 1998 after serving 4 years, 1 month, and 29 days in the United States Army Reserves. On 21 May 2012, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, his military...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2014 | AR20140006018

    Original file (AR20140006018.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Prior Board Review: Yes, 3 September 2010 SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 September 1992, for a period of 3 years. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. However, the service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130011051

    Original file (AR20130011051.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 November 2011, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. c. An Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 6 May 2011. d. A discharge separation packet under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-5a(2), conviction by civil court, initiated on 5 April 2011. e. DD Forms 256A, (Honorable Discharge Certificates), dated...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130007581

    Original file (AR20130007581.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. The separation authority directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicant was rated as “Among the Best” on one report and “Fully Capable” on three reports by his raters and received a “2/1, two 2/2, and a 3/3” rating from his senior rater (SRs) for...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130017343

    Original file (AR20130017343.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 17 January 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20130017343 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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. The applicant requests his general, under...