RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	   30 August 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070004437 


	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Ms. Jeanne Marie Rowan

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Bernard Ingold

Chairperson

Mr. Thomas Ray

Member

Mr. Gerald Purcell

Member

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his service in the Marine Corps and during his Regular Army enlistment prior to his separation was honorable.  He states, in effect, his chain of command chose to separate him instead of assisting him with his financial mismanagement.  He has attempted to enlist in the United States Army Reserve within the past two years, but has not successfully enlisted due to his reenlistment code.  He further states, in effect, that his personal character since his separation is exemplary and he is currently employed as a police officer.  He requests that his military record reflect his honorable service prior to his financial trouble as well as reflect his exemplary public service post separation.  He wants the Board to know that all financial debts he incurred during the period in question were paid in full.  

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation or other evidence in support of his application.

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 period 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 military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on
21 March 1984 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic combat and advanced individual training, and was awarded the Military Occupational Specialty 64C (Heavy Vehicle Driver).  The highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was sergeant/pay grade E5.

3.  The applicant's records do not show any significant acts of valor during his military service.
4.  The applicant's records show an extensive history of counseling and nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Records show he had a history of uttering worthless checks starting in 1986.

	a.  On four separate occasions, he was counseled by his chain of command for uttering worthless checks and abuse of check cashing privileges.  The dates of counseling are 2 December 1988, 14 December 1989, 11 January 1989, and 24 January 1989.  He concurred with the counselor's statements.  As a result his check cashing privileges were suspended and he was directed to seek financial counseling.  He was informed that future misconduct could result in punishment under the provisions of the UCMJ and separation from active duty.

	b.  On three separate occasions, he accepted nonjudicial punishment for violation of Article 134, UCMJ, for writing checks with insufficient funds in his banking account.  The dates were 3 February 1989, 14 February 1989, and  
22 February 1989.  His punishments were reduction (twice), forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction.

5.  On 22 February 1989,  the applicant's commander initiated separation action against him for commission of a serious offense under the provisions of chapter 14-12(c) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations).  The specific reason for elimination consideration was his uttering of worthless checks from his financial institution with insufficient funds to pay for services, goods, and materials. 

6.  On 22 February 1989, the applicant acknowledged his commander's proposed separation action for commission of a serious offense by his failure to pay just debts and writing bad checks.  He consulted with legal counsel.  The applicant indicated that he understood that if he was separated that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a general discharge under honorable conditions.

7.  The applicant submitted a personal statement to the separation authority asking for leniency.  The applicant stated, in effect, that he accepted his punishment under the provisions of the UCMJ for indebtness and writing bad checks.  He further states the reason for his financial mismanagement was due to extreme marital problems, which ended in divorce based on his former wife's inability to control and maintain the family finances.  He stated, in effect, that his 
wife drained their joint checking account during the separation prior to the divorce 
causing the checks to be returned for insufficient funds.  He wrote that he had 10 years of honorable service in the Marine Corps and Regular Army without any derogatory information or blemishes to his record.

8.  On 3 March 1989, the separation authority approved the commander's recommendation for discharge, directed that the applicant receive a General Discharge Certificate, and further directed that the applicant would not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve. 

9.  On 13 March 1989, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 due to a pattern of misconduct with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions.  He had completed a total of 4 years, 11 months, and 23 days of creditable active military service during this enlistment period.

10.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within the Board's 15-year statute of limitations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), then in effect, 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, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absences without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded due to his honorable record of service in the Marine Corps and in the Regular Army prior to separation.  He acknowledges he was discharged due to his inability to adequately maintain his personal and financial affairs.  He writes that his personal character since his separation is exemplary and he is currently employed as a police officer.  He would like his record corrected to honorably reflect his service prior to his financial problems and to reflect his exemplary public service as a police officer.  He wants the Board to know that all financial debts he incurred during the period in question are paid in full. 

2.  Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with regulations in effect at the time.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The records contain no indication of procedural or other errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.

4.  A review of the applicant's record of service shows the applicant did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  The applicant's entire record of service was considered.  There is no record or documentary evidence of acts of valor, achievement, or service that would warrant special recognition.

5.  It would appear that the applicant's prior service was considered when he was given a general discharge.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally issued to Soldiers separated for misconduct.

6.  Based on all of the foregoing, there is insufficient basis to upgrade the applicant's discharge.




BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__BI ____  ___TR __  ___GP __  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.




_____ Bernard Ingold________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070004437
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070830
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
110.02
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.