IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 5 July 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120000182
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).
2. The applicant states his discharge should be upgraded based on his actions and his community involvement.
3. The applicant provides a copy of the photograph page from his U.S. passport.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 November 2005. He was trained as a medical logistics specialist, military occupational specialty (MOS) 68J.
2. The applicant's records do not contain the complete details surrounding his active service and his discharge; however, they do show:
* 3 days of absence without leave (AWOL)
* the acceptance of a field grade Article 15 punishment (not a matter of record)
* reduction from specialist (SPC/E-4) to private (PV2/E-2)
3. On an unknown date in August 2009 but acknowledged by the applicant on 24 August 2009, the applicant's unit commander initiated action to separate him for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. The commander noted the applicant:
* failed to report for duty on several occasions
* wrongfully appropriated a government vehicle
* disobeyed the lawful order of a noncommissioned officer (NCO)
* disrespected an NCO
* was AWOL from 18-20 August 2009
4. The applicant met with legal counsel who advised him of his rights and of the impact of the proposed discharge action. The applicant elected not to make a statement. The administrative separation action was then processed with a recommendation for a GD.
5. On 10 September 2009, the separation authority waived rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant be separated with a GD. On 16 September 2009, the applicant was discharged with a GD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct.
6. The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade. The ADRB, after considering his case on 7 November 2011, denied his request.
7. 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.
8. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states an 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 members 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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's request was carefully considered; however, the evidence of record and the evidence provided by the applicant do not support an upgrade of his discharge from GD to HD.
2. Although a complete accounting of the applicant's misconduct and his administrative separation is not available, he was discharged for frequent acts of misconduct. These acts were identified by his unit commander in the notification acknowledged by the applicant on 24 August 2009.
3. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights; he was afforded legal counsel and advised of his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for it were appropriate considering all the facts of the 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) AR20120000182
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120000182
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017060
The applicant requests that his General Discharge (GD) be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge (HD). Following his misconduct, the applicant was notified by his commander that administrative separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), for misconduct. Army policy states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023617
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). Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130006196
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. On 19 March 2009, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge under the provision of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for commission of a serious offense, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001758
The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued at the time shows he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense. The evidence of record and the independent evidence provided by the applicant fail to show he was improperly advised or that the characterization of his service was unjust. Although the authority and reason for the applicant's discharge authorized...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000598
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). In his election, he acknowledged that because he had less than 6 years service, he was not entitled to have his case heard by an administrative separation board unless he was being considered for an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. The separation authority may issue an HD or GD if warranted by the overall record of service; however, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010870
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his general discharge (GD) to a fully honorable discharge (HD). The commander cited AWOL from on or about 20 February to on or about 26 June 2009 and testing positive for marijuana and cocaine as the basis for his recommendation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001859
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). On 15 April 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed he receive an UOTHC discharge. On 7 May 1985, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016852
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The separation authority could issue an HD or general under honorable conditions discharge (GD) if it was warranted by the member's overall record of service; however, a UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under this provision of the regulation. This extensive record of misconduct clearly did not support the issuance of an HD or GD by the separation authority...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130005901
On 11 May 2012, the separation authority, waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. Army Regulation 635-200,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009929
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). There is no indication that the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15 year statute of limitations. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability (character and behavior disorder), as...