RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	   


	BOARD DATE:	  15 January 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070009900 


	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. Michael L. Engle

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Curtis L. Greenway

Chairperson

Mr. Joe R. Schroeder

Member

Mr. Qawiy Sabree

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 general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he needs his discharge upgraded so that he can get help from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and better himself. 

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation.

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.  On 6 October 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  He successfully completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11H (Heavy Antiarmor Weapons Infantryman).  

3.  On 22 January 1988, the applicant was assigned for duty with the 2nd Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 197th Infantry Brigade, Fort Benning, Georgia.

4.  On 17 May 1988, the applicant was counseled by the company commander about his positive urinalysis testing for cocaine.  The commander informed the applicant that he was going to recommend his discharge due to drug use.   

5.  On 7 July 1988, the applicant received counseling about his breaking restriction and being AWOL (absent without leave) in June and July.  He was informed that the commander was going to recommend either a court-martial or an administrative separation. 



6.  On 20 July 1988, the applicant’s commander recommended that he be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The commander stated that the applicant had been AWOL on two occasions; from 19 to 25 May 1988 and from
4 to 22 June 1988.  He also stated that the applicant had been counseled on numerous occasions concerning his performance and that he was given every opportunity to excel.  The commander further stated that the applicant should not be rehabilitatively transferred because he did not believe the applicant would develop into the quality Soldier desired by the United States Army.    

7. On 20 July 1988, the applicant consulted with counsel and elected not to make a statement on his own behalf.

8.  On 4 August 1988, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  

9.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 12 August 1988.  He had completed 9 months and 11 days of creditable active service.

10.  On 17 April 1992, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge.

11.  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.

12.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant has not provided any evidence or sufficiently mitigating argument to warrant upgrade of his discharge.

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

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ QS_  _  __CLG __  __JRS __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that 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.




__ Curtis L. Greenway___
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070009900
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20080115
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE
19880812
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200. . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.