Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | AR1999024754
Original file (AR1999024754.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
PART II - APPLICATION DATA

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

1. Character of Discharge: UOHC

2. Date of discharge (or REFRAD): 971204

3. Authority for separation:

         a. Regulation: Chapter 14, AR 635-200

          b. Reason: Misconduct
4. Prior review(s): NONE


PART III - SERVICE HISTORY

SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review

 1.       Service data: 2. Awards and decorations:
                            AAM(3)
a. Period entered for: 2 Years
b. Entry date: 961010
c. Age: 20 Years DOB: 760128
d. Educational level: HS Grad
e. Aptitude area score:
          GT: 102 3. Highest grade achieved:
f. Length of Service: E4
1 Year 1 Month 25 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

         Mil conf

         Civil conf

         Other


6. Nonjudicial punishment:

         Date     Offense(s)
         970219 FTG, two specifications (961024); (961104); stealing five Velcro stripes valued at less than $100.00 (970131)
         970512 FTG (970506)
         970911 Wrongfully used marijuana, (970407)

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

Other discharge(s):

          Service   From      To        Type Discharge
         RA 940805 961009 HD




PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW
SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT
l. Facts and Circumstances:
         a. The evidence of record shows that on 8 August 1997, 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 recommendation for an under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) discharge. The applicant was advised of his rights, consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, requested a hearing by a board of officers, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. The intermediate commanders recommended approval of the separation action with a UOHC discharge. On 14 November 1997, an administrative separation board of officers convened to consider the applicant’s case, the applicant and his counsel were present. The separation board recommended that the applicant be separated for misconduct-commission of a serious offense and that he receive a UOHC discharge. The Staff Judge Advocate recommended approval of the findings and recommendations of the separation board, and on 21 November 1997, the separation authority directed that the applicant be separated with a UOHC discharge and be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.

         b. On 4 December 1997, the applicant was discharged with a UOHC discharge. At the time of discharge, the applicant had completed 1 year, 1 month, and
25 days of his current enlistment, and a total of 3 years and 4 months of active military service.

         c. The applicant’s record shows that he completed over 3 years of service; attained the rank of specialist/E-4; and had earned three Army Achievement Medals. There is an extensive disciplinary history which includes the applicant’s acceptance of three Article 15’s: the first on 19 February 1997, for two specifications of failing to go to his prescribed place of duty and for stealing property valued at less than $100.00 from the main exchange which resulted in a reduction to private first class/E-3; the second on 12 May 1997, for failing to go to his prescribed place of duty which resulted in a reduction to private/E-2; and the third on 11 September 1997, for wrongfully using marijuana which resulted in a reduction to private/E-1. The unit commander processed the applicant for separation for the commission of a serious offense, based on the applicant’s drug abuse, larceny, multiple failures to repair, and his disobeying a noncommissioned officer.

2. Legal/Regulatory Basis for Separation Action : Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter l4 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, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.
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 990329.
         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 Examiner
         ( ) Tender Offer

         c. Review/hearing location and date: Washington D.C. on 23 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:
         ( X )   Additional issue(s) identified during review/hearing as follows:

Board Issue: (2) The characterization of service was too harsh.
         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 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, his discharge was improper because he reenlisted too early to receive education benefits. After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service for the enlistment under review, the Board concluded that the applicant's misconduct diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge, and clearly did not warrant relief beyond that provided in response to issue (2) below. Finally, eligibility for veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill, does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance with this issue.


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


(2) The issue is accepted. There was a full consideration of all service including the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses. The Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable because the quality of the applicant's service did not warrant the granting of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant's failure to perform in accordance with Army standards was mitigated by service of sufficient merit to warrant an upgrade of the discharge being reviewed. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. The Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.



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                       .

         ( )      Equitable.
         ( X )    Inequitable as to characterization. Change characterization to General, Under Honorable Conditions.
         ( )      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 4 1

         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

 TO: ARBA Support Division-St Louis Date: 25 June 1999.

The Army Discharge Review Board, established under the provisions of Section 30, Public Law 346, 78th Congress, 22 June 1944 and codified as Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the applicant named in Part I directs that the ARBA Support Division-St Louis issue a new DD Form 2l4 to the applicant which reflects the following directed change(s):

 ( X )   Characterization of discharge be changed to General, Under Honorable Conditions.
( X )   Other (see remarks below).
Remarks: Restore the applicant’s grade to private/E-2.


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: 1999024754 INDEX NUMBERS: A9218
Date of Review: 990623 A9446
Character of Service: UD A0100
Date of Discharge: 971204
Authority: AR 635-200 C14
Reason: A6730
Results of Board Action/
Vote/Affirmation: GD 4-1 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 | CY2000 | 2000041206

    Original file (2000041206.rtf) 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.3. EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted by applicant

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2000 | 2000043831

    Original file (2000043831.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Evidence of record shows that on 8 August 1997, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter l4, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—patterns of misconduct/commission of a serious offense, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. PART VII -...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999025599

    Original file (1999025599.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant acknowledged notification, consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement on his behalf. On 16 May 1997, the applicant was discharged with a UOHC discharge. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. RIVERA Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A -...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999025350

    Original file (1999025350.rtf) 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.3. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. ADRIANCE Case Reviewing Official PART...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999022379

    Original file (1999022379.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. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999023176

    Original file (1999023176.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 April 1997, the applicant was discharged with a UOHC 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. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. ADRIANCE Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority:THOMAS J. ALLEN Colonel, U.S....

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1998 | 1998012250

    Original file (1998012250.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. The Board,...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999024580

    Original file (1999024580.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. EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted by applicant AR Number: 1999024580 INDEX NUMBERS: A9235 Date of Review: 990421 A9217 Character of Service: UD A9221 Date of...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999026175

    Original file (1999026175.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. 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 | CY1999 | AR1999024231

    Original file (AR1999024231.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 April 1997, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter l0, AR 635-200 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. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and...