RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  7 February 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070013539 


	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. William D. Powers

Chairperson

Ms. Rose M. Lys

Member

Mr. Qawiy A. 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 his conduct and efficiency, on average, were good.  His Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that he was rated either excellent or good with the exception of the last entry.   With one exception, his promotion record shows that he was a good Soldier.  He further states that his record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) reflected only minor  offenses for not signing out of the unit; for being late to work; and once for being AWOL (absent without leave) for 9 days.  He contends that his ability to serve was impaired because of family problems.  He requested a reassignment so he could work a part time job and take care of his family.  The applicant also states that, as a result of the stress and harassment from a member of his unit, he had psychiatric problems.  In January 1967, he broke down and was sent to the Great Lakes Naval Hospital for a mental health examination.  Currently, he is under the care of the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center for depression, and is trying to get his life back in order.

3.  The applicant provides letters of support from Veterans Upward Bound, Roosevelt University; and from The Ann F. Baum Family Enrichment Center.  These letters state, in effect, that the applicant has been an excellent role model who has shown a keen ability to persevere through times of distress and need. He has worked hard to remain a healthy and positive person, who even at age 63, wishes to better himself in every possible area.

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 8 July 1963, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 716.10 (Information Specialist).

3.  On 9 March 1964, the applicant was advanced to private first class, pay grade E-3.

4.  Records show that effective 18 September 1964, the applicant was reduced to private, pay grade E-2, as a result of NJP.  The specific offense(s) and circumstances are not contained in the available records.

5.  On 18 December 1964, the applicant immediately reenlisted in the Regular Army for another 3 years.  He retained his MOS, which was subsequently 
re-designated as 71Q1O.

6.  On 28 April 1965, the applicant was assigned for duty as an information specialist with Headquarters, 8th United States Army (Rear) in the Republic of Korea.  

7.  On 20 May 1965, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to properly sign in and out of his unit.  The punishment included 14 days restriction and extra duty.

8.  On 18 February 1966, the applicant was returned to the United States for duty at Headquarters, 5th United States Army, at Chicago, Illinois. 

9.  On 17 June 1966, the applicant was promoted to specialist four, pay grade 
E-4.

10.  On 8 September 1966, the applicant accepted NJP for AWOL (9 days).  The punishment included a forfeiture of $41.00 pay per month for 1 month, and
4 days restriction and extra duty.

11.  On 1 December 1966, the applicant accepted NJP for failure to report to his place of duty.  The punishment included reduction to private first class, pay grade E-3 (suspended).

12.  On 7 December 1966, the applicant accepted NJP for being absent from his place of duty from 0730 hours to 1600 hours on 30 November 1966.  The punishment included a forfeiture of $42.00 pay per month for 1 month, and
14 days restriction and extra duty.

13.  On 9 December 1966, the applicant requested separation from the United States Army due to hardship and dependency.  He cited, in part, his mother’s recent death and his need to earn more income to support his family and grandparents.

14.  On 30 January 1967, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed that the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  

15.  On 6 February 1967, the applicant underwent a medical examination wherein he was found to be qualified for separation.  There is no available evidence showing that he had a mental breakdown.

16.  On 13 February 1967, the applicant's commander initiated a Bar to Reenlistment stating that the applicant had been relieved from two different job assignments due to misconduct, inefficiency, and unreliability.  He further stated that the applicant's entire period of service with the Headquarters had been characterized by poor attitude, failure to respond to corrections, and misconduct. 

17.  On 6 March 1967, he was discharged under honorable conditions.  He had completed a total of 3 years and 8 months of creditable active military service and had accrued 9 days of time lost due to AWOL.

18.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant's DD Form 214 list only the National Defense Service Medal.

19.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 6 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel because of genuine dependency or hardship.  An application for such separation will be approved when a service member can substantiate that his situation or immediate family's situation has been aggravated to an excessive degree since enlistment, that the condition is not temporary and that discharge will improve the situation.

20.  Army Regulation 635-200 further provides, in pertinent part, that characterization at separation will be based upon the quality of the Soldier’s service, including the reason for separation.  The quality of service will be determined according to standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty for military personnel.  The quality of service of a Soldier on active duty is affected adversely by conduct that is of a nature to bring discredit on the Army or is prejudicial to good order and discipline.  Characterization may 
be based on conduct in the civilian community.  As a general matter, characterization will be based upon a pattern of behavior rather than an isolated incident.  Due consideration will be given to the Soldier’s age, length of service, grade, aptitude, physical and mental conditions, and the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.  The characterization of service will be determined solely by the military record during the current enlistment or period of service, plus any extension thereof, from which the Soldier is being separated.    An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’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.  When a Soldier is discharged before the expiration of his term of service (ETS) for a reason for which an honorable discharge is discretionary, the following considerations apply: (a) Where there have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s).  (b) A Soldier will not necessarily be denied an honorable discharge solely by reason of the number of convictions by court-martial or NJP. Conviction by a general court-martial or by more than one special court-martial does not automatically rule out the possibility of awarding an honorable discharge.  (c) An honorable discharge may be furnished when disqualifying entries in the Soldier’s military record are outweighed by subsequent honest and faithful service over a greater period of time during the current term of service.  It is a pattern of behavior and not the isolated incident that should be considered the governing factor in determination of character of service.  Unless otherwise ineligible, a Soldier may receive an honorable discharge if he/she has, during his/her current enlistment, period of obligated service, or any extensions thereof, received a personal decoration.  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 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 evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant received NJP in 1964, 1965, and 1966.  His misconduct was such that his commander initiated action to bar him from further reenlistment.

4.  The applicant's contention that he had a mental breakdown prior to his discharge is not substantiated by any available evidence.

5.  The applicant’s good post-service conduct is noted.  However, it does not sufficiently mitigate his repeated acts of indiscipline during his military service.

6.  There is no evidence showing that the applicant ever received a personal decoration.

7.  The quality of the applicant’s service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  However, his service was sufficiently satisfactory to warrant a General Discharge.   

8.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_QAS___  __RML___  __WDP _  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.




___ 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.