Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009490
Original file (20080009490.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  21 August 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080009490 


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

2.  The applicant states he was recently informed by a veteran’s representative that this could be done.

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’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 11 May 1982.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63T (Improved Tow Vehicle/ Infantry Fighting Vehicle/Cavalry Fighting Vehicle System Mechanic) and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private (PV2)/pay grade E-2.  The record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  

3.  On 3 November 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for possession of Marijuana.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $128.00 pay, and 14 days restriction and extra duty (to run concurrently).  

4.  On 30 December 1982, the applicant accepted NJP for operating a passenger vehicle while drunk.  His imposed punishment was 45 days extra duty.

5.  In January 1983, the applicant was formally counseled on two different occasions for conduct, performance, and appearance-related issues that included being late for formation, failure to repair, and overall unsatisfactory performance of his duties.

6.  On 2 March 1983, a Mental Status Evaluation and a physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.  

7.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge proceedings are not in his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ).  However, the MPRJ does contain a separation document (DD Form 214) that shows he was discharged on 17 March 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 13, with an under honorable conditions discharge.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) issued to him at the time, confirms the applicant completed a total of 10 months and 7 days of creditable active military service.

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

9.  Chapter 13, of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability.  At that time, this regulation required that separation action will be taken when, in the commander’s judgment, the individual will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual’s entire 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 contentions that his general discharge, under honorable conditions should be upgraded to an honorable discharge was carefully considered and found to be insufficient in merit.

2.  Although, the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing, it does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the reason and characterization of the applicant’s discharge as unsatisfactory performance.

3.  After carefully evaluating the available evidence in this case, it is determined that the applicant’s discharge processing was conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and that the character of his service is commensurate with his overall record of military service.  Therefore, given the circumstances in this case, there is insufficient evidence to grant his request.  

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must satisfactorily show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

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
      
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)                                         AR20080009490



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080009490



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014891

    Original file (20080014891.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the MPRJ does contain a separation document (DD Form 214) that shows he was discharged on 8 June 1984, under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 with an under honorable conditions discharge. Chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017949

    Original file (20090017949.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also stated the applicant had no potential for retention on active duty. The applicant was discharged, on 18 February 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with service characterized as general under honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1. There is no evidence in the available records that indicate the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009513

    Original file (20100009513.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf in which he asserted, in effect, that he was unaware that his performance had been unsatisfactory because he had received a number of certificates of achievement while in the unit for his good performance. Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 18 April 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. When authorized, it is...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010999C071029

    Original file (20060010999C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations. Further, the applicant's misconduct clearly diminished his overall record of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018620

    Original file (20070018620.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 6 April 1983, and again on 3 May 1983, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. On 6 May 1983, the applicant’s commander formally recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. On 21 June 1983, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088077C070403

    Original file (2003088077C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The medical condition (disability) that was diagnosed in her service records show a diagnosis of "chronic fatigue" on 2 November 1981 which is not reflected on her discharge. However, no one informed her that these physical effects would increase while she was in the service. It states, in pertinent part, that documents that form a basis for the separation, which includes counseling statements, will be filed in the local MPRJ.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003937

    Original file (20070003937.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant authenticated this document with his signature indicating he was being discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, by reason of for the good of the service, and characterized as under other than honorable conditions. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. There is also no documentation in his medical record that to show he was medically unfit to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009379

    Original file (20080009379.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the MPRJ does contain a separation document (DD Form 214) that shows he was discharged on 15 October 1990, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a discharge under honorable conditions (general). There is no evidence in his available record nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to support any of his allegations. After carefully evaluating the available evidence in this case, it is determined that the applicant’s...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000126C071029

    Original file (20070000126C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 June 1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence of record provides no documentary evidence that indicates the applicant was ever denied the opportunity to apply for a hardship discharge or that he ever suffered from or was treated for a disabling medical condition that would have supported his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007644

    Original file (20130007644.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, his records do contain a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) which shows he was discharged under honorable conditions on 15 April 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. Therefore, the Board determined that...