RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  20 March 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070016192 


	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.


x

	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 under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that his discharge was improper due to events that occurred during Grenada conflict training.  He states that his First Sergeant asked him to go to airborne training but he declined.  He alleges that his discharge was very unfair.  He also alleges that he has suffered and been deprived of good noble employment due to his type of discharge.  

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents 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 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 September 1981 for a period of three years.  After completion of basic training and advanced individual training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 76X (subsistence supply specialist).  

3.  On 10 November 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully possessing a dangerous drug (Pempline).  

4.  The applicant received adverse counseling statements on 8 April 1983 and 12 April 1983 for being absent from company formation.

5.  On 21 June 1983, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being absent from his place of duty on 16 June 1983 from 0830 hours to 1215 hours.

6.  On 20 July 1983, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being absent from his place of duty on 24 June 1983 from 0930 hours to 1200 hours.

7.  On 20 July 1983, the applicant's unit commander notified him of his proposed recommendation to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  He was advised of his rights.  

8.  The applicant acknowledged notification of the separation action, consulted with legal counsel, and submitted statements in his own behalf.  His statements are not available.

9.  The separation authority approved the recommendation for separation, waived rehabilitation requirements, and directed issuance of a general discharge. 

10.  The applicant was discharged on 24 August 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had 1 year, 11 months, and 23 days of active military service.

11.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within its 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel.  In pertinent part, it states that 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.  Where there have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The applicant's service record shows he received one Article 15, UCMJ for wrongfully possessing a dangerous drug (Pempline) and two Article 15s for being absent from his place of duty.  He also received adverse counseling statements regarding his failure to be at his appointed place of duty.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

3.  It appears the chain of command determined that the applicant's overall military service did not meet the standards for an honorable discharge as defined in Army Regulation 635-200 and appropriately characterized his service as general under honorable conditions.  

4.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the type of discharge issued to him was in error or unjust. 

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


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.