IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 30 June 2009
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090004127
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 be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states that he served his country well, that he was a great Soldier. Circumstances beyond his control led to his discharge. While he was deployed, his wife was not paying the bills which got him into trouble. He did not know that the discharge could be upgraded.
3. The applicant provides no additional documentation to substantiate 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 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 (RA) and entered active duty on 22 November 1983. He completed training as a wheeled vehicle repairer and progressed normally. He reenlisted on 4 November 1986, in pay grade E-4.
3. On 20 February 1990, the applicant was recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), chapter 14, with a general discharge due to acts or a pattern of misconduct. The letter of notification cited the following as the basis for consideration: "Discreditable involvement with civil and military authorities (DUI 2nd Charge, implied consent, failure to stop for an accident, no proof of insurance, driving too fast for conditions)." These offenses occurred in Hinesville, Georgia on 1 January 1990. Attached documents referred to counseling statements, nonjudicial punishment and a letter of reprimand for missing formations, repeated over indulgence in alcohol, and driving on post with an illegal blood alcohol level.
4. The applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily waived his right to have a board of officers consider his case, provided he received no worse than a general discharge. He indicated that he was not submitting statements in his own behalf.
5. The separation authority approved the recommendation, directed a general discharge, and waived any rehabilitation requirements because such action was unlikely to produce a quality Soldier.
6. The applicant was accordingly separated on 12 April 1990 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
7. 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, and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. 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 Soldiers overall record.
8. 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's contentions have been noted and carefully considered. However, neither the evidence submitted by the applicant nor the evidence of record supports his contentions. Clearly the applicant's own behavior led to his discharge.
3. The discharge process was in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the applicant's service was appropriately characterized.
4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The record does not contain any evidence and the applicant failed to submit any evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
5. In view of the above, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.
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) AR20090004127
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090004127
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021591
The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. There is no evidence that the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. __________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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012577
BOARD DATE: 10 November 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100012577 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states there is no error or injustice with his discharge. On 18 November 1991, the applicant's commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 14, for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002651
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge to an honorable discharge. The commander recommended the applicant receive an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005374
On 3 September 1992, the applicant's commander notified him that he was recommending him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), for the commission of a serious offense. On 21 October 1992, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b and c, by reason of pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. Although...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001812
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows in item 21 (Time Lost) the following entries: * 7 December 1989 to 16 January 1990, 40 days of civilian confinement * 9 March, civilian confinement * 23 March 1990, confined by civil authorities 6. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct-commission of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012323
The applicant contends it has been over 20 years since his discharge under other than honorable conditions. His subsequent honorable service in the Alabama Army National Guard and his active duty service during the period 15 March 2003 to 25 May 2003 are commendable and were carefully considered. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001559
On 4 April 1989, the separation authority approved the chain of command's recommendation to discharge the applicant and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct based on commission of a serious offense (abuse of illegal drugs) and issued an Under Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. On 21 November 1990, the separation authority approved the chain of command's recommendation for discharge of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028897
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 June 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100028897 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 17 January 1990, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct - commission of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001713
A DA Form 4856-R, dated 11 September 1990, shows the applicant was driving or in physical control of a motor vehicle on 10 July 1990 while his blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limits. On 11 February 1991, the applicant's immediate commander initiated discharge action against him based on his commission of a serious offense. It further stated that ADAPCP services would continue to be provided until the client was separated and that enlisted Soldiers identified as illegally abusing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020864
On 24 January 1992, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, by reason of misconduct - pattern of misconduct and directed the issuance of a general discharge. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of misconduct - pattern of misconduct with a general discharge under honorable conditions. There is no indication in his...