RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  25 March 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070017764 


	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 changed to an honorable discharge.  He also requests that his Reentry (RE) code be changed.  

2.  The applicant states that he was in the service during the 1980s and he was not prepared for what was to come.  He states that he was young and stupid, but he is now an adult and is responsible.  

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

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 7 April 1981 at 17 years of age. After completion of basic combat training and advanced individual training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 61C (watercraft engineer).  

3.  On 5 October 1981, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  

4.  He was advanced to private, E-2 on 7 October 1981.

5.  On three occasions between March 1982 and September 1982, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for leaving his place of duty; for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 22 July 1982 to 24 July 1982; and for failing to obey a lawful order issued by his commanding officer.

6.  On 18 February 1983, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to obey a lawful order.

7.  On various occasions between March 1982 and March 1983, the applicant received adverse counseling statements for acting in a drunk and disorderly manner; for being late; for being absent from formation; for failing to obey a lawful order; and for a positive urinalysis test.

8.  On 3 May 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.  The unit commander stated the basis for his proposed separation action was the applicant’s inability to perform duties effectively in the future, including his potential for advancement or leadership.  

9.  The applicant acknowledged notification of the separation action, consulted with legal counsel, and did not submit statements in his own behalf.  

10.  The separation authority approved the recommendation for separation, waived rehabilitation requirements, and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

11.  The applicant was discharged on 21 June 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He completed 2 years, 2 months, and 13 days of active military service with 2 days of lost time due to AWOL. 

12.  His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged in pay grade E-1 and was issued RE codes of RE-3, RE-3B, and RE-3C and a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of "JHJ" (Unsatisfactory Performance). 

13.  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.

14.  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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

15.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.  The regulation shows that the separation program designator “JHJ” as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214 specifies the narrative reason for discharge as “Unsatisfactory Performance” and that the authority for discharge under this separation program designator is “AR 635-200, Chapter 13."  

16.  Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect, at the time, established RE code 3 as the proper reentry code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.

17.  Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.  

18.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.

19.  RE-3B applied to persons who had lost time during their last period of service.  

20.  RE-3C applied to persons separated from their last period of service who did not meet the reentry grade and service criteria of Army Regulation 601-210.


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 five Article 15s, one for being AWOL for 2 days, and he received several adverse counseling statements. 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’s statements were noted.  However, age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor for upgrading a discharge.  

5.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows he was assigned RE codes of RE-3, 
RE-3B, and RE-3C in accordance with regulations in effect at the time.  The RE codes reflect that the applicant was not eligible for reenlistment without a waiver because he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13; he had lost time during his last period of service; and he did not meet the reentry grade and service criteria.

6.  There is no evidence of record which shows the character of service or RE codes issued to the applicant were 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.