IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 3 July 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120000880
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 be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states it was a financial error.
3. The applicant provides no documentary evidence.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 June 1990 for a period of
4 years. He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 71M (chaplain assistant). On 27 August 1995, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted on 28 August 1995 for a period of 2 years. He was honorably discharged on 4 February 1997 for immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted on 5 February 1997 for a period of
2 years. On 23 February 1998, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted on 24 February 1998 for a period of 6 years.
2. His history of misconduct included:
* Arrested for spouse abuse (twice)
* Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) imposed on 1 April 1998
* Writing bad checks
* Arrested for worthless checks
* Bar to reenlistment
3. He was counseled for various infractions which included:
* Failure to pay just debts
* Failure to repair
* False official statement
* Disobeying a noncommissioned officer (NCO)
4. On 9 June 1999, he was notified of his pending separation for misconduct (patterns of misconduct) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-12b. The unit commander cited the applicant's civil conviction for writing worthless checks, spousal abuse, receiving an NJP for failing to properly secure his M-16 rifle and leaving his appointed place of duty, counseling on numerous occasions for failing to pay just debts, failure to repair, making a false official statement, and disobeying an NCO.
5. On 9 June 1999, he consulted with counsel, acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued, and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.
6. On 18 June 1999, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge.
7. On 9 July 1999, he was discharged under honorable conditions (general discharge) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct (patterns of misconduct). He completed a total of 9 years and 3 days of creditable active service with 9 days of lost time.
8. On 26 October 2010, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an honorable discharge.
9. Army Regulation 635-200 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 (military or civilian 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.
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 members 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. His record of service during his last enlistment included one NJP, civil convictions for worthless checks and spousal abuse, numerous adverse counseling statements for various offenses, and 9 days of lost time. As a result, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns; however, he failed to do so.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons were therefore appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.
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) AR20120000880
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120000880
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005491
He voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general under honorable conditions, requested personal appearance before an administrative separation board, and requested representation by military counsel. He was discharged on 31 January 1989 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct - pattern of misconduct. Army Regulation...
ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120021519
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided DD Form 293, dated 15 November 2012; DD Form 214 for service under current review; VA summary medical message, dated 13 November 2012. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. However, the fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050016766C070206
The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3-year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006027
On 1 April 1986, his commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b, chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) because he had established a pattern of misconduct consisting of: * being absent from his appointed place of duty without authority * wrongful using marijuana * failing to pay just debts * making and uttering worthless checks 8. On 8 April 1986, the appropriate authority...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013908
The reason for this misconduct was due to him being very young when he enlisted (17 years of age). He never received any form of punishment or counseling for his work as a Soldier, only for financial issues conducted off duty. There is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military term of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110022071
Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 16 November 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct for receiving a Company Grade Article 15 for failing to repair (FTR) and disobeying an order from an NCO (981005); receiving a Summarized Article 15 for FTR (981102); FTR x 8 (971006, 971008, 971210, 980618, 980714,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010209
The separation authority may issue an honorable discharge or general discharge if warranted by the overall record of service; however, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for members separated under these provisions of the regulation. The evidence of record, however, confirms the applicant's separation was based upon a pattern of misconduct and processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. The applicant notes his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002509
On 15 September 1992, the applicant's commander advised him that he was initiating action to separate him for a pattern of misconduct under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations). There is no evidence in his record and he has not submitted any substantive evidence showing he was diagnosed with or being treated for PTSD while serving in the military. Based on the applicant's record of misconduct, his service clearly did...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130002841
On 22 January 2008, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions and did not submit a statement on his behalf. On 8 February 2008, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016473
On 22 May 1992, the applicant's commander notified him that he was recommending him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct), paragraph 14-12b, based on a pattern of misconduct. The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge of the applicant and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b,...