IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 23 July 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140021435
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, that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge with a more favorable narrative reason for separation.
2. The applicant states he was informed that he would have to wait 6 months to a year to have his discharge upgraded.
3. The applicant provides a one-page statement explaining his application and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 August 1999 for a period of 3 years. He completed training as a petroleum supply specialist and he was assigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia for his first and only assignment. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 14 January 2002.
2. On 19 May 2002, he reenlisted for a period of 4 years and a selective reenlistment bonus.
3. On 23 December 2002, the applicants commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense). He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant had two violations of driving under the influence of alcohol, three violations of failure to report, and failure to obey a lawful order.
4. After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
5. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a general discharge.
6. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 21 January 2003 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-13c, for misconduct. He had served 3 years, 5 months, and 18 days of active service.
7. A review of the available evidence shows that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on at least three occasions for multiple failures to go to his appointed place of duty, dereliction of duty, and assault.
8. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. On 6 March 2013, the ADRB determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable under the circumstances and voted unanimously to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct. Specific categories include minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, and commission of a serious offense, which includes drug offenses. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
b. 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 member's 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. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would jeopardize his rights.
2. Accordingly, the characterization and the narrative reason for separation were appropriate for the circumstances of his case. The applicant's overall service simply did not rise to the level of a fully honorable 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) AR20140021435
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140021435
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004608
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2), by reason of "Misconduct" with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions, a separation code of "JKK," and an RE code of "3." Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designators) states that separation codes are three-character alphabetic combinations, which identify reasons for, and types of separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021320
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully-honorable discharge. The applicant states he is requesting an upgrade of his discharge due to bad times. On 30 June 2004, the ADRB, in a three-to-two vote, voted to upgrade his discharge to a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000882
On 8 October 2002, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request to voluntarily waive consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service or description of separation no less favorable than a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant appeared in person before a board of officers who considered his testimony and all of the evidence presented in his case in order to determine whether he should be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004944
On 12 February 2002, the applicant's company commander recommended approval of the applicant's separation for misconduct based on commission of a serious offense. On 11 March 2002, after having been advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for commission of a serious offense, that his request for conditional waiver was denied on 4 March 2002, and that he was entitled to have his case heard by an administrative separation board, the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017087C071108
On 28 August 2002, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed that he receive an under other than honorable discharge. The applicant was issued a new DD Form 214 showing his separation from the service, in pay grade E-5, on 29 August 2002, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-3, Secretarial Authority, with an honorable discharge. Title 10, United States Code, section 1174(b)(1) provides that a regular enlisted member of an armed force who...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008941
On 8 January 2002, the company commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action to effect his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), chapter 14 (Misconduct), paragraph 14-12c, based on commission of a serious offense. On 1 February 2002, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, and directed the applicant be given an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008917
On 7 July 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend that he be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, commission of the following serious offenses: he wrongfully operated a vehicle while under the influence on 4 July 2002, 21 October 2002, 23 September 2005, and 3 June 2006. He acknowledged that if he received a less than honorable characterization of service, he may make an application to the Army...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130010434
The applicant states, in effect, he served for two years and was discharged when he tested positive for marijuana. On 31 October 2002, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120020353
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge characterization from general, under honorable conditions to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for the discharge, the SPD and RE codes. On 11 March 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct, for the commission of serious offenses; specifically for being arrested by civilian authorities for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000626
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). g. On 26 March 1996, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was discharged on 9 April 1996 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2) for misconduct - commission of a serious offense (abuse of illegal drugs)) with...