RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  11 March 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070017004 


	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. Frank C. Jones II

Chairperson

Ms. Carmen Duncan

Member

Mr. Scott W. Faught

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, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions. 

2.  The applicant states that it has been a long time since his discharge.  He made mistakes for which he is sorry.  He is now married and has two children. He wants his children to be able to benefit from his military service.

3.  The applicant provides no supporting 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 19 June 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 6 years.   He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63W (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).

3.  On 27 November 1979, the applicant was assigned for duty as a wheel vehicle mechanic with the 517th Maintenance Company, in the Federal Republic of Germany.  

4.  On 10 December 1982, the applicant completed his overseas tour of duty.  He was returned to the United States on 31 January 1983, for duty with the 
27th Maintenance Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas. 

5.  On 12, 14, and 18 April 1983, the applicant received performance counseling for his bad attitude and for being late for work on two occasions.

6.  On 16 August 1983, the applicant was counseled for not paying his just debts. The applicant had received a notice of non-payment for five checks totaling $133.58.

7.  On 22 August 1983, the applicant was notified by The Southland Corporation that he owed $189.78 for eight dishonored checks. 

8.  On 12 September 1983, the applicant’s commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.   The commander based his recommendation on the applicant’s theft by worthless checks.

9.  On 16 September 1983, the applicant was notified by Check Rite that he owed $100.32 for four dishonored checks that he presented to Dominos Pizza; and $86.26 for three dishonored checks that he presented to U-Tote-M.

10.  The applicant consulted with counsel concerning his rights and waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.  He elected to make a statement in his own behalf, saying that he should receive nothing less than a General Discharge.  He provided copies of letters of appreciation and certificates of achievement that he had received during his tour of duty in the Federal Republic of Germany.

11.  In an undated endorsement, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

12.  Accordingly, on 19 December 1983, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions.  He had completed 4 years, 5 months, and 
2 days of creditable active service.

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

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 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, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence 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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The record shows that the applicant was counseled on four occasions and had written 20 worthless checks in a 6 month period.  Clearly, this is a pattern of misconduct.

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

3.  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 this requirement.

4.  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

___ FCJ __  __CD ___  __SWF    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.




_____ Frank C. Jones II ____
          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.