IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 24 July 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080004009
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests that his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.
2. The applicant states that he was discharged because of his ex-wifes actions. He was unaware that he could request an upgrade.
3. The applicant provides no additional evidence.
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 applicants 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 applicants 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 16 February 1984. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).
3. Between February 1985 and April 1985, the applicant received several counseling statements for infractions such as failing to get a haircut (upon which the applicant commented that he was unable to sit in a barber chair due to having a full-leg cast); being out of uniform; failing to shorten his dress green trousers after being told to have it done; unprofessional performance of duty (laying his weapon out of sight while on guard duty); failing to observe common military courtesy; and having a negative attitude even after being transferred to another squad.
4. On 8 March 1985, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.
5. On 2 April 1985, the applicants commander initiated separation proceedings on the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. His recommendation cited the applicants marked inability to function as a Soldier and his demonstration of his inability to develop a sense of discipline or to adequately perform any assigned duties.
6. On 2 April 1985, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. He acknowledged that he understood he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were to be issued to him.
7. On 2 May 1985, the applicant was formally recommended for discharge. The commander noted that the applicants behavior was not in keeping with the standards expected to be maintained. He had been counseled as well as warned as to the consequences of not performing up to prescribed military standards on numerous occasions. He had been punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and had a problem of indebtedness.
8. On 2 May 1985, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be given a General Discharge Certificate.
9. On 17 June 1985, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. He had completed 1 year, 4 months, and 2 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.
10. 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 commanders judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.
11. 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 members 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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. Unless the applicant blames his ex-wife for his indebtedness problems, it is difficult to see how his ex-wife could have been responsible for the other infractions that resulted in his being given numerous counseling statements and his Article 15.
2. The applicants administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. The type of discharge given was and is still appropriate considering the overall quality of his service.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__xx____ ___xx___ __xx____ 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.
________xxxx___________
CHAIRPERSON
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080004009
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080004009
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004435
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged from active duty on 18 April 1989 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. In view of the applicant's overall meritorious record, his indebtedness, while an appropriate basis for discharge, should not overshadow his otherwise honorable service. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. voiding the applicant's current...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016704
The company commander also stated he was recommending the applicant receive an honorable discharge and that the least favorable characterization of service he may receive is other than honorable. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Therefore, as a matter of justice, the applicants military service records should be corrected to show that he was honorably discharged effective...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004211
On 27 January 1988, the applicants commander signed an elimination packet on the applicant for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct patterns of misconduct. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter. Based on these facts, the applicants service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel which are required...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015045
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 April 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090015045 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicants commander signed an elimination packet on the applicant for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant signed a statement indicating that he was advised he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009385
The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, on 13 November 1979, for 3 years. On 18 June 1985, the applicants commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12d. The applicant was separated on 17 July 1985, in pay grade E-4, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12d, Misconduct Drug Abuse.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010880
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. The commander advised the applicant of his right to: * be represented by counsel * submit statements in his own behalf * review documents to be presented to the separation authority * waive any of these rights * withdraw any waiver of rights at any time prior to the date the discharge authority directs or approves his discharge 13. The appropriate authority: * waived a rehabilitative transfer * approved...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007599
He was told his general discharge would be upgraded to an honorable within 6 months to a year. He advised the applicant of his rights and that he could receive a general or an honorable discharge. He further acknowledged he could request an upgrade of a discharge which was less than honorable by making application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or ABCMR; however, the act by either board did not imply that his discharge would be upgraded.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007717C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 May2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040007717 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. The applicant was counseled on 9 August 1984 regarding his indebtedness. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within that Board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000669
On 1 October 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge from the Army for unsatisfactory performance and directed that he receive a General Discharge Certificate. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged for unsatisfactory performance in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200, with an Under Honorable Conditions (General) Discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010319
On one occasion when his platoon sergeant was visiting him in his room he was showing him pictures of his family. His commander indicated the reasons for his proposed action were because of the applicant's unsatisfactory performance, based on his poor counseling statements and four instances of nonjudicial punishment. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by...