Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999025881
Original file (1999025881.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): 960419

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:
                            NDSM
a. Period entered for: 3 Years ASR
b. Entry date: 941228
c. Age: 24 Years DOB:
d. Educational level: HS Grad
e. Aptitude area score:
          GT: 100 3. Highest grade achieved:
f. Length of Service: E2
1 Year(s) 3 Month(s) 22 Day(s)

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

         Mil conf

         Civil conf

         Other


6. Nonjudicial punishment:

         Date     Offense(s)
         951208   FTG, three specifications; (951108); (951027); (950906); Make
                           and utter a bad check (950906)

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

        
         b. SPCM:
                  Date Offense(s)

         c. GCM: 
                  Date Offense(s)


8.       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. Evidence of record shows that on 22 February 1996, 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, with a general discharge. She was advised of her rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in her behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service, and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 11 April 1996, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge.

         b. On 19 April 1996, the applicant was discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. At the time of discharge, the applicant had
1 year, 3 months, and 22 days service on his current enlistment.

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 990414, with four (4) enclosure(s).
         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, DC on 2 June 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 record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, in effect, that there is no reference to her job performance in her 201 File. Even if true, the Board concluded that the applicant’s misconduct diminished the quality of her service below that warranting an honorable discharge. The evidence of record shows the applicant was counseled on numerous occasions for missing formations, indebtedness and violating a company policy letter on travel passes. The applicant also accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for the above misconduct. The Board decided that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct that led to the separation action under review. The Board concluded that the discrediting entries in the applicant's record were not outweighed by prior or subsequent service of sufficient merit to warrant an upgrade of the discharge being reviewed. 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(s) to item(s) not addressed as decisional issue(s): NONE
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       

                                 
MRS. WADE
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: 1999025881 INDEX NUMBERS: A9217
Date of Review: 990602 A0100
Character of Service: GD A9447
Date of Discharge: 960419
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 | CY1999 | 1999034601

    Original file (1999034601.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 MR. RON WILLIAMS 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999016173

    Original file (1999016173.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Evidence of record shows that on 26 February 1996, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter l4, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. 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 -...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | 2003094415

    Original file (2003094415.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 May 1996, 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. The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.3.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2004 | AR20040000527

    Original file (AR20040000527.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. RON WILLIAMS Case...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999025023

    Original file (1999025023.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted by applicant AR Number: 1999025023 INDEX NUMBERS: A9218 Date of Review: 990428 A9236 Character of Service: GD A9412 Date of Discharge: 960419 A0100 Authority: AR 135-178 C7 Reason: A6730 Results of Board Action/ Vote/Affirmation: HD 3-2 A PART IX - VOTING RECORDName Reason Characterization...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2000 | 2000042215

    Original file (2000042215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board noted the applicant’s contention that his discharge was inequitable because he was wrongfully punished for the offense which led to his separation from the Army, however, the commission of a serious offense obligated military authorities to consider the applicant for discharge. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified Ms. McKim-Spilker Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | AR20050006314

    Original file (AR20050006314.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified Ms. McKim-Spilker Case...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999030651

    Original file (1999030651.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chapter l0 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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. AR Number:...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2000 | 2000043183

    Original file (2000043183.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Prior review(s): NONE PART III - SERVICE HISTORY SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review 1. The applicant acknowledged notification, consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, request consideration of his case by an administrative separation board and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. On 1 May 1998, the applicant was discharged.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2000 | 2000049979

    Original file (2000049979.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 May 1996, the applicant was discharged. 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. 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.