Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999029555
Original file (1999029555.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): 920407

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: 4 Years SWASMw/2BSS
b. Entry date: 891006 KLM
c. Age: 18 Years DOB: 710615 ASR
d. Educational level: HS Grad
e. Aptitude area score:
          GT: 104 3. Highest grade achieved:
f. Length of Service: E3
2 Year(s) 5 Month(s) 3 Day(s)

4. Performance evaluations:
NONE

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

5. Periods of unauthorized absence:

Status Inclusive dates
         AWOL 911211-920109

         Mil conf

         Civil conf

         Other


6. Nonjudicial punishment:

         Date     Offense(s)
         911105 Walking on the outside ledge of the 3 rd floor billets (911104)(summarized)
         920113 Without proper authority, damage a government door (911117)
         920123 AWOL (911211-920110)

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

        
         b. SPCM:
                  Date Offense(s)

         c. GCM: 
                  Date Offense(s)


8.       Remarks: Bar to Reenlistment (911003)
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 evidence of record shows that on 2 March 1992, 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 (GD). He was advised of his rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on his behalf. The unit commander subsequently reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended separation from the Army. Staff Judge Advocate determined the separation action to be legally sufficient. On undated, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a GD.

         b. On 7 April 1992, the applicant was discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, under the provisions of Chapter l3, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance. At the time of discharge, the applicant had 2 years, 5 months, and 2 days on his current enlistment and 29 days of lost time.

         c. The unit commander recommended separation based upon a pattern of failure to repair and failure to follow orders and regulation.

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 990715.
         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 15 September 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 carefully examined the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses. The Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The Board concluded that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. Additionally, 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. 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: 1999029555 INDEX NUMBERS: A9217
Date of Review: 990915 A0100
Character of Service: GD A9301
Date of Discharge: 920407 A9445
Authority: AR 635-200 C13 A9201
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 | AR1999023703

    Original file (AR1999023703.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.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 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | 2003088892

    Original file (2003088892.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The evidence of record shows that on 15 December 1992, 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 characterization of service of honorable. The applicant’s unsatisfactory performance was mitigated by the minor nature of the discrediting entries in his file and the unit commander’s recommendation that the applicant be discharged with an honorable characterization...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2000 | 2000035228

    Original file (2000035228.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates that he was released from active duty under the provisions of Chapter 13, Paragraph 13-2, AR 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. A-2: Counsel Issues: NONE B-l: Other Documents: NONE C-1: DD Form 149, dated 991112. SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority:THOMAS J. ALLEN Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2000 | 2000040401

    Original file (2000040401.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    His DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 by reason of misconduct-patterns of misconduct with a characterization of service of honorable. A-2: Counsel Issues: NONE B-l: Other Documents: NONE C-1: DD Form 149, dated 000322. EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted by applicant

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2001 | 2001058098

    Original file (2001058098.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, requested treatment in a VA medical hospital and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. Beyond changing the applicant’s discharge document to reflect the current regulations, the Board determined that he was properly discharged by reason of misconduct due to his use of illegal drugs. ( X ) Change reason and authority for discharge to Misconduct, AR 635-200 .

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999027542

    Original file (1999027542.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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:THOMAS J. ALLEN Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted by applicant AR Number: 1999027542 INDEX NUMBERS: A9217 Date of Review: 990728 A9203 Character...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2000 | 2000049602

    Original file (2000049602.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority:WILSON A. SHATZER Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted by applicant

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | AR2003097622

    Original file (AR2003097622.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Evidence of record shows that on 2 March 1994, 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. Change characterization to Honorable. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. RON WILLIAMS Case Reviewing Official PART VIII -...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999017874

    Original file (1999017874.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. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the Board found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MRS. WADE Case Reviewing Official PART VIII -...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2004 | AR2004103363

    Original file (AR2004103363.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. Change characterization to General, Under Honorable Conditions. SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted by...