IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080015975 


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 1986 discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states he had marriage problems and was told the character of his service would be automatically upgraded after 6 months.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.

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.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 August 1980 and successfully completed training in the signal field.  By April 1982 he had attained the rank of specialist four (SP4)/E-4 and in July 1983 he was awarded an Army Good Conduct Medal in spite of having received a summary Article 15 in January 1983 for consuming alcohol in the billets in violation of a commander’s order.  The applicant was permitted to reenlist on 
1 June 1983.

3.  Between August 1984 and December 1985 the applicant was punished five more times under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for offenses ranging from damaging private property to failure to repair.  His record contains numerous counseling statements related to his conduct and performance during the same period.

4.  A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 November 1985, shows the applicant's behavior was found to be normal.  He was found to be fully alert and fully oriented.  His mood or affect was unremarkable, his thinking process was clear, and his thought content was normal.  The evaluating psychiatrist, a doctor of medicine, found him to be mentally responsible, and considered him to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in separation proceedings.  The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action as deemed appropriate by the command.

5.  On 13 December 1985, the applicant was notified of his unit commander’s intent to recommend him for elimination from the U.S. Army, under the provisions of paragraph 13-2a, chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) with a recommendation that he be issued a general discharge under honorable conditions.  The commander stated the reasons for the proposed recommendation were that the applicant’s failure to correct the shortcomings he had been repeatedly counseled about, coupled with his 6 records of nonjudicial punishment, clearly indicated his future in the Army was questionable and that he had become a detrimental and disturbing figure within the unit.

6.  On 16 December 1985, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged the proposed elimination action for unsatisfactory performance.  He waived his right to have his case heard before a board of officers.  He also acknowledged that he understood that he might be issued a general discharge under honorable conditions.  Although the applicant indicated he would submit statements on his own behalf there was no evidence in the available records that any such statements were ever submitted.

7.  On 28 January 1986 the appropriate authority approved the applicant's separation and specified the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  

8.  The applicant was discharged on 14 February 1986, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  His service was characterized as under honorable conditions.  He was credited with 5 years, 5 months, and 26 days of total active service.

9.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, to include separation for those individuals who fail to maintain Army physical standards.  Service of individuals separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records.

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 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.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now seeks.  

2.  The applicant's repeated unsatisfactory performance diminished the quality of his service below that merits a fully honorable discharge. 

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations and the characterization of his service and the reasons therefore were appropriate, considering all the facts of the case.  His completion of training, promotion to the rank of specialist and initial award of the Army Good Conduct Medal are all indicators the applicant was fully capable of honorable service.  He has provided no evidence nor shown that his unsatisfactory performance was related to marital problems. 
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

___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.



      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
               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)                                         AR20080015975



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080015975



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1