IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 June 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140018347 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 an upgrade of his under other honorable conditions (general) discharge to a fully honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states: * the reason for his discharge was that he had a female in his room while the first sergeant was conducting a walk through * he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and asked to be discharged because he had too much pride * he was a good Soldier with accelerated promotion and awards; he made a mistake in asking for the discharge * he was only 20 years of age at the time and he wanted to be an officer; he would later join the Army National Guard (ARNG) * he is only asking for a second chance; he would have made a great officer 3. The applicant does not provide any evidence. 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's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 July 1982. He was trained in and held military occupational specialty 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist). 3. He served in Korea from 13 December 1982 to 14 December 1983. He was advanced to private first class (PFC)/E-3 on 1 September 1983 and specialist four (SP4)/E-4 on 9 August 1985. He was awarded or authorized the: * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon * Good Conduct Medal * Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar * Army Achievement Medal * Army Commendation Medal * NCO Professional Development Ribbon 4. His service records show he was frequently counseled by members of his chain of command for various infractions including: * Stealing a meal, the property of another Soldier * Absenting himself from his appointed place of duty * Misplacing an ammunition round and failing to report it or recover it * Having U.S. Government property (a TV) in his room * Having a female in his barracks room during an inspection 5. His records contain a history of accepting NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on/for: * 27 January 1974, theft of another Soldier's property * 28 January 1985, wrongfully stealing telephone services * 9 August 1985, wrongfully having a female in his barracks room (he was reduced from SP4 to PFC) 6. On 28 January 1985, he was reprimanded by his commanding officer for misconduct. He willfully and wrongfully accepted unauthorized and unofficial collect calls with intent to defraud the U.S. Government. 7. He had undergone a mental status evaluation on 23 August 1985. He was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by his chain of command. 8. On 9 September 1985, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations) for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. The specific reasons were cited as the applicant's misconduct that included repeated violation of accepted standards of personal conduct despite verbal and written counseling and despite summary and formal NJP. 9. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to separate him. He consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action for misconduct, the type of discharge he could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights available to him. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived his right to appear before a board of officers, and elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. He acknowledged he understood: * he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him * that as a result of the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under Federal and State laws 10. Subsequent to the applicant's acknowledgement, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200 due to misconduct – pattern of misconduct. The intermediate commander recommended approval of the discharge. 11. Consistent with the chain of command's recommendations and following a legal review for legal sufficiency, the separation authority approved the administrative discharge and ordered the applicant discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct (pattern of misconduct) and directed issuance of an under honorable conditions discharge. 12. The applicant was discharged on 20 September 1985. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged by reason of misconduct - pattern of misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, with his service characterized as under honorable conditions (general). This form further confirms he completed 3 years, 2 months, and 7 days of creditable active military service during this period. 13. On 11 July 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed his discharge but found it proper and equitable. Accordingly, the ADRB denied his petition for an upgrade of his discharge. 14. He enlisted in the ARNG on 28 April 1988 and he was discharged from the ARNG on 23 May 1991 after having been convicted by a civil court. 15. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 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, and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. a. Paragraph 3-7a 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. b. Paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence of record shows the applicant exhibited a pattern of misconduct ranging from failing to go to his appointed place of duty, absenting himself from duty, having an unauthorized individual in his room during an inspection, to theft of individual and government property, and exhibiting a behavior that was prejudicial to good order and discipline. As a result, his chain of command initiated separation action against him. 2. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. He was accordingly discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, due to his pattern of misconduct. 3. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. His discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service during his enlistment was not consistent with Army standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. Therefore, he is not entitled to the requested relief. 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) AR20140018347 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140018347 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1