Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999016174
Original file (1999016174.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
PART II - APPLICATION DATA

(Note: Part I deleted under the Privacy Act on Reading Room copy)

1. Character of Discharge: GD

2. Date of discharge (or REFRAD): 910521

3. Authority for separation:

         a. Regulation: Chapter 13, AR 635-200

          b. Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance
4. Prior review(s): NONE


PART III - SERVICE HISTORY

SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review

 1.       Service data: 2. Awards and decorations:
                            ASR
a. Period entered for: 6 Years NDSM
b. Entry date: 890607
c. Age: 18 Years DOB: 710216
d. Educational level: HS Grad
e. Aptitude area score:
          GT: 113 3. Highest grade achieved:
f. Length of Service: E3
2 Years 2 Months 16 Days

4. Performance evaluations:
NONE

PART III - SERVICE HISTORY
SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review - Continued

5. Periods of unauthorized absence: NONE

 Status Inclusive dates
         AWOL 910401-910408

         Mil conf

         Civil conf

         Other


6. Nonjudicial punishment:

         Date     Offense(s)
         910416   AWOL (910401-910409)

7. Court-Martial data: NONE
         a. SCM:
                  Date Offense(s)

        
         b. SPCM:
                  Date Offense(s)

         c. GCM: 
                  Date Offense(s)


8.       Remarks: The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) erroneously lists, in item 12a (Date Entered Active Duty), the date 890228 which is the day the applicant entered the delayed entry program. The actual date he entered active duty was 890607.
SECTION B - Prior Service Data
NONE

Other discharge(s):

          Service   From      To        Type Discharge





PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW

SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT
l. Facts and Circumstances:

         a. Evidence of record shows that on 6 May 1991, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter l3, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance. The applicant was advised of his rights, consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. On 14 May 1991, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

         b. On 21 May 1991, the applicant was discharged with a GD. At the time of discharge, the applicant had completed 2 years, 2 months, 16 days of active military service and had accrued 8 days of time lost due to AWOL.

         c. The applicant’s record shows that he had completed just over two years of service and that the highest rank he achieved while on active duty was private first class/E-3. His disciplinary record includes his acceptance of an Article 15 on 16 April 1991 for being AWOL from 1 to 9 April 1991. His punishment for this offense included a reduction in rank to private/E-2. The applicant’s unit commander processed the applicant for separation for unsatisfactory performance, citing the applicant’s repeated misconduct, problems with his child, and his unwillingness to serve. The commander further commented that the applicant had told his chain of command that he wanted out of the Army and would do more misconduct until he was released.

2. Legal/Regulatory Basis for Separation Action: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. Army policy states that a general discharge, under honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases.
SECTION B-APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS

 1. Issue(s) of propriety and/or equity submitted by applicant or counsel.
As stated on applicant’s DD Form 293.
2. Exhibit(s) submitted:
         A-1: DD Form 293, dated 980813.
         A-2: Counsel Issues: NONE
         B-l: Other Documents: NONE

PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW (CONTINUED)



SECTION C - Medical and/or Legal Advisory Opinion


Referred to ( ) Medical Advisor ( ) Legal Advisor



 a. Medical prehearing comments (if applicable):

b. Legal prehearing comments (if applicable):
PART V - SUMMARY OF HEARING

SECTION A-Attendees and exhibits

1. Review/hearing information:

         a. Type requested:
         ( X ) Records review ( ) Hearing

         b. Type Held:
         ( X )Records review ( ) Hearing
         ( ) Tender Offer

         c. Review/hearing location and date: Washington D.C. on 3 March 1999 .
         d. Appearance by:
         Applicant ( ) Yes ( X ) No
         Counsel ( ) Yes ( X ) No

          e. Applicant testified: ( ) Yes ( X ) No
        
         f. Counsel presentation: ( ) Yes ( X ) No
        
         g. Witness(es) testified: ( ) Yes ( X ) No
        
2. Exhibit(s) submitted at hearing:

PART VI - ISSUES AND FINDINGS

1. a. Applicant's issue(s) of propriety and/or equity:

          ( X )   Same as those listed on DD Form 293 and Part IV, Section A of this case report and directive.
         ( )     Revised issue(s) furnished in writing by applicant as follows:
         ( )     Additional issue(s) identified during review/hearing as follows:
         b. Request: ( X ) Recharacterization ( ) Change of Reason
2. Finding(s), conclusion(s), and reason(s) for the Board's decision(s) on issues of propriety and/or equity:

          a. Propriety:    The applicant has not submitted an issue of propriety and the ADRB has not otherwise relied upon an issue of propriety to change the discharge.

          b. Equity:       The parenthetical number(s) below correspond(s) to the issue number(s) on the DD Form 293, or in Part VI, Paragraph 1, above.

 (1) The issue is rejected. The Board noted the applicant’s contention that, in effect, he was a good soldier until his son became blind, and his concern over this, and the lack of an appropriate response by the chain of command, resulted in his misconduct. However, after carefully reviewing the applicant’s record for the enlistment under review, the Board, while empathetic with the applicant’s desire to care for his son, concluded this factor did not mitigate his misconduct sufficiently to warrant an upgrade of the discharge. The Board determined that the applicant failed to pursue the many legitimate avenues available to him to obtain assistance or relief. He elected rather to resort to committing the misconduct which led to his discharge. The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.
3. Response to an item not addressed as decisional issue:

The Board, while reviewing this case found that the period of active duty contained in item 12 c of the DD Form 214 was incorrect. It credited the applicant with active duty time for the period he was in the delayed entry program. However, the Board based on it’s policy not to correct errors on the DD Form 214 which are unfavorable to the applicant, elected not to correct the dates.

PART VII - BOARD ACTION
SECTION A - Conclusions/Decisions/Vote

1.       Board conclusion(s):

         The discharge was:

          ( X )    Proper.
         ( )      Improper as to characterization. Change characterization to                                      .
         ( )      Improper as to reason. Change reason to                         under                       .

         ( X )    Equitable.
         ( )      Inequitable as to characterization. Change characterization to                                .
         ( )      Inequitable as to reason. Change reason to                       
                  under                                  .
         ( )      Both proper and equitable, but characterization/reason for separation cited was an administrative/clerical error and should be changed to                      under                          .
2. Voting record: Change No Change
         Reason 0 5
Characterization 0 5

         The names and votes of the members of the Board are recorded in Part IX of this document and can be obtained by writing to the address below. The request must contain the CASE NO. located in the upper right corner of this document.

Department of the Army Review Boards Agency
ATTN: Promulgation Team
1941 Jefferson Davis Highway, 2nd Floor
Arlington, VA 22202-4508



3. Minority views: NONE

PART VII - BOARD ACTION
SECTION B - Verification and Authentication

Case report reviewed and verified       

                                 
MR. ADRIANCE
Case Reviewing Official 


PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATION
SECTION A - DIRECTIVE
NONE
SECTION B - CERTIFICATION

Approval Authority:


THOMAS J. ALLEN
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge
Review Board

Official:




SUZANNE WALKER
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder

EXHIBITS:
A - Application for review of discharge          C - Other
B - Material submitted by applicant

INDEX RECORD:

 AR Number: 1999016174 INDEX NUMBERS: A9217
Date of Review: 990303 A9307
Character of Service: GD A0100
Date of Discharge: 910521
Authority: AR 635-200 C13
Reason: A4900
Results of Board Action/
Vote/Affirmation: NC 5-0 A













PART IX - VOTING RECORD



 Name  Reason Characterization
 CHANGE NC HON UHC NC UNCHAR
1.      Mbr      X          X    

2.      Mbr      X          X    

3.      Mbr      X          X    

4.      Mbr      X          X    

5.      PO      X          X    





Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | AR2003098589

    Original file (AR2003098589.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    SECTION B - Prior Service Data NONE Other discharge(s): Service From To Type Discharge PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT l. Facts and Circumstances: a. The separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of honorable. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified Ms. McKim-Spilker Case Reviewing Official PART VIII -...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2001 | 2001060177

    Original file (2001060177.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 May 1991, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of an under other than honorable conditions. On 21 May 1991, the applicant was discharged. It also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 99032645

    Original file (99032645.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Prior review(s): NONE PART III - SERVICE HISTORY SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review 1. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MRS. WADE Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority:THOMAS J. ALLEN Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2000 | 2000039554

    Original file (2000039554.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 May 1994, the applicant was discharged. The Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review. It also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2002 | 2002078259

    Original file (2002078259.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    Evidence of record shows that on 3 October 1991, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter l4, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-pattern of misconduct, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Applicant's issue(s) of propriety and/or equity: ( X ) Same as those listed on DD Form 293 and Part IV, Section A of this case report and directive. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2000 | 2000051028

    Original file (2000051028.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.3. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. RIVERA Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority:WILSON A. SHATZER Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board EXHIBITS: A - Application...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2004 | AR2004106510

    Original file (AR2004106510.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Remarks: NONE SECTION B - Prior Service Data NONE Other discharge(s): Service From To Type Discharge PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT l. Facts and Circumstances: a. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general discharge. SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW Lieutenant...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2004 | AR2004106469

    Original file (AR2004106469.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Remarks: NONE SECTION B - Prior Service Data NONE Other discharge(s): Service From To Type Discharge PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT l. Facts and Circumstances: a. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general discharge. SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW Lieutenant...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | 2003087446

    Original file (2003087446 .rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Army Discharge Review Board is empowered to change the characterization of the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. RIVERA Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE TO: ARBA Support Division-St Louis Date: 12 September 2003 The Army Discharge Review Board, established under the provisions of Section 30, Public Law 346,...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2001 | 2001052369

    Original file (2001052369.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 no less favorable than a general, under honorable conditions discharge and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to...