IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 October 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130004556 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 that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states that he is currently seeking employment and an upgraded discharge would assist him in being more competitive in the job market. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 June 1989 for a period of 4 years and training as a materiel storage and handling specialist. He completed basic training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and advanced individual training at Fort Lee, Virginia and he was transferred to Fort Myer, Virginia for his first and only assignment. 3. On 26 November 1991, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for shoplifting a jacket from the Post Exchange. 4. On 2 December 1991, the applicant was arrested by civil authorities for driving on a revoked license and possession of cocaine. 5. On 18 December 1991, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that she 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. 6. After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 7. On 19 February 1992, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. 8. Accordingly, on 28 February 1992, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, due to misconduct – commission of a serious offense, with a General Discharge Certificate. He had served 2 years, 8 months, and 21 days of active service. 9. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct. Specific categories included 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. 11. Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 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 have jeopardized his rights. 2. The characterization and the narrative reason for separation were appropriate for the circumstances of his case. 3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the nature of his offenses. The applicant’s overall service simply does not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge. 4. Additionally, the Board does not upgrade a discharge simply for the purpose of increasing an individual’s employment prospects. 5. Accordingly, there appears to be no valid basis to warrant an upgrade of his 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) AR20130004556 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130004556 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1