IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  19 June 2008

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080004211 


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 discharge be upgraded from general under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he and his wife were having relationship problems because of the debt they had created.  He was told that he could have his discharge upgraded once he got his financial status in order.  

3.  The applicant continues that he should have never been discharged with a general discharge certificate.  He was a great combat medic and in the top 
20 percent of all medical personnel by achieving the Expert Field Medical Badge. He was a model Soldier on duty. 

4.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with the ending period 2 March 1988.

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 22 May 1984 and successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 91A (Medical Specialist).  

3.  The applicant's record reveals a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of general counseling statements on the following dates:  13 May 1986 for not paying a personal debt to a fellow Soldier, 30 May 1986 for a notification warrant for insufficient funds, 6 June 1986 for owing several individuals in his unit money and not attending scheduled financial counseling appointments, 18 September 1986 for writing several bad checks, 24 September 1986 for writing a bad check, and 25 September 1986 for writing a bad check.

4.  A DA Form 4126-R, dated 26 September 1986, shows the applicant was barred from reenlistment after writing numerous dishonored checks and for failure to repair.

5.  On 23 October 1986, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to control and register a pet.  His punishment consisted of an oral reprimand.

6.  The applicant's disciplinary history also includes his acceptance of general counseling statements on the following dates:  17 October 1986 for being late for formation and for two instances of him writing a bad check and three instances of his wife writing a bad check; 23 October 1986 for letters of indebtedness, writing bad checks, and failure to control a pet; 5 November 1986 for notification of intent to separate from the service; 29 January 1987 for failure to repair; 1 April 1987 for not being recommended for promotion to E-5; and 19 November 
1987 for failing to maintain sufficient funds.

7.  On 27 January 1988, the applicant’s 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.  The reasons cited by the commander was the applicant’s having a year of professional/informal counseling, continued to write bad checks, failed to pay debts, and continued to incur additional debts.  The applicant was advised of his rights and was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel.  He signed a statement declining the opportunity and did not submit a statement in his behalf.

8.  On 3 February 1988, the appropriate authority approved the elimination packet and waiver of the rehabilitative transfer requirement and directed the applicant receive a general under honorable conditions discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  On 2 March 1988, the applicant was separated from the service after completing 3 years, 
9 months, and 11 days of creditable active service with no lost time.

9.  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 and an unfit medical condition is not the direct or substantial contributing cause of his misconduct.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record.  

10.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's records show that he received one Article 15, had numerous general counselings, had numerous failures to repair, and had failed to maintain sufficient funds in his checking account.  Based on these facts, the applicant’s service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel which are required for issuance of an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

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.




       _   _xxxxx______   ___
       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)                                         AR20080004211





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080004211



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1