RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  25 September 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070007860 


	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

Mr. Rial D. Coleman

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. William D. Powers 

Chairperson

Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas   

Member

Mr. Jerome L. Pionk 

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 be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that his actions as a young man were not a true reflection on the type of person he was.  The applicant, in effect, continues that his age and immaturity were the cause of the indiscipline which resulted in his discharge.

3.  The applicant provides a one page self-authored statement and his resume in support of this 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 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 Army at the age of 20, on
27 June 1984 and served until his separation on 12 October 1990.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training (AIT).  Upon completion of AIT, he was awarded the military occupational specialty 31J (Teletypewriter repairer).  The highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist-four/pay grade E-4.  

3.  The record reveals a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on four occasions for the following offenses:  
13 October 1988, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty; 29 March 1989, for being absent without leave (AWOL) for five days; 9 May 1990, for disobeying a lawful order; and 20 July 1990, for larceny.

4.  On 5 September 1990, the unit commander advised the applicant that he was recommending his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for commission of a serious offense.
5.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation, its effects and the rights available to him, he waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers, and his right to counsel contingent upon receiving a characterization of service or description of separation no less favorable than under honorable conditions-otherwise known as a "General" discharge.

6.  On 21 September 1990, the separation authority directed the applicant’s separation under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200 and that he receive a General Discharge Certificate.  On 12 October 1990, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued to him at the time, confirms the applicant completed a total of 6 years, 10 months and, 12 days of creditable active military service.

7.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, in effect at the time of the applicant’s separation, 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.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge based on the fact that he was young and immature at the time of his military service was carefully considered and determined to be without merit.

2.  Records show that the applicant was 24 and 25 years of age at the time of his offenses.  There is no evidence that indicates that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

3.  Evidence of records shows that the applicant failed to be at his appointed place of duty, went AWOL for five days, disobeyed a lawful order, and stole property.

4.  Based on this record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LMD____  _WDP__  _JLP___  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.




_William D. Powers___
          CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

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

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.