IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 30 March 2010
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090016741
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 upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD).
2. The applicant states he would like his GD upgraded to an HD because he has no benefits and at the time he was young and didnt understand the long term outcome. He also states he was not offered any professional advice.
3. The applicant provides no documentary evidence 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 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 applicants record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 June 1991. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92A (Automated Logistical Specialist).
3. The applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows, in Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions), that he was advanced to the rank/grade of specialist four (SP4)/E-4 on 15 September 1993 and that this is the highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty. Item 9 (Awards, Decorations, and Campaigns) shows he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure: National Defense Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Medal, and Driver and Mechanic Badge with Driver-W Bar. His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.
4. Between 13 December 1993 and 13 February 1994, the applicant received four general counseling statements for substandard performance and domestic violence against his wife.
5. On 1 March 1994, the applicant received a letter of reprimand for physical assault on his wife. Between 4 March and 11 March 1994 the applicant received two general counseling statements for been absent from his appointed place of duty.
6. On 14 April 1994, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 86, Uniform code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 11 March 1994. His punishment included a reduction to the rank/grade of private first class (PFC)/E3, and 14 days of extra duty.
7. Between 31 May 1994 and 23 June 1994, the applicant received four general counseling statements for travelling out of the prescribed radius without a pass, failing to pay spousal benefits, unauthorized usage of a military phone, and failing to make APFT formations.
8. On 2 August 1994, the unit commander notified the applicant he was initiating separation action on him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. The unit commander cited the applicants repeated misconduct to include, but not limited to numerous occasions of missing formations, assault, and misuse of government services as the basis for the action.
9. On 2 August 1994, the applicant was advised of his rights and he completed a statement waiving his right to a personal appearance before a board of officers
and he elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. He later submitted a memorandum to his unit commander indicating he had no statement in his behalf.
10. On 11 August 1994, the separation authority approved the applicants separation and directed he receive a General Discharge Certificate. On
19 August 1994 the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time confirms he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of misconduct. He completed a total of 3 years and 2 months net active service.
11. 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.
12. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave. The regulation states, in pertinent part, that a discharge UOTHC is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. The separation authority may direct a GD if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. A characterization of honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be inappropriate. An honorable discharge (HD) may be approved only by the commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction, or higher authority, unless authority is properly delegated.
13. Paragraph 3-7a of the same regulation provides that an HD 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 that he served his country, he was not properly investigated nor given any legal advice, and that he was very young and did not
understand the long term outcome was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request.
2. The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. All requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. He acknowledged that he was advised by legal counsel of the basis for his separation, its effects, and the prejudice he may encounter in civilian life if he received a general discharge.
3. Record show that the applicant was 20 years of age at the time of his offences. There is no evidence that indicates that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.
4. The applicant's record reveals a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of NJP, numerous counseling, and a letter of reprimand. As a result, his record was not sufficiently meritorious to support the issue of an HD by the separation authority at the time of his discharge, nor is it sufficiently meritorious to support an upgrade of his discharge at this late date
5. 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 applicant has failed to submit 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) AR20090016741
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090016741
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014444
The applicant requests his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He acknowledged he understood that if he received a discharge/character of service which is less than honorable, he may make application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or this Board for upgrading. Although an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate for the authority and reason for his discharge, it appears the separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014385
The applicant requests that his general discharge be changed to an honorable discharge. On 13 May 1994, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, with issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. On 19 May 1994, he was discharged accordingly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015186
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). On 17 May 1993, his company commander notified him he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, for serious misconduct. The applicant's company commander stated the reason for the proposed action was for writing bad checks.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014545
On or about 13 December 1993, the applicant's commander informed him she was initiating action to separate him for a pattern of misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14-12b. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge to an HD. __________X______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020189
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 12 March 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence determined the applicant had been properly and equitably discharged and voted to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge and or a change in the narrative reason for separation. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100020189 3 ARMY BOARD FOR...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012578
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. His records show he was counseled on at least 14 separate occasions regarding his acts of misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110025233
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge. On 11 April 1994, he was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct (patterns of misconduct). On 30 December 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017017
The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 August 1987 in the rank of private/E-2 after having prior military service in the U.S. Army Reserve. On 17 October 1988, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him under honorable conditions under the provisions Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct commission of a serious offense. His DD Form 214 shows...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009731
There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Although an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, it appears the separation authority considered the applicant's total service when he directed the issuance of a general under honorable conditions discharge. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050014369C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued to the applicant on the date of her separation confirms that the applicant was issued a general discharge under honorable conditions. Moreover, there is no evidence in the applicant's statement, separation action, or in her military service records that shows that she was sexually assaulted by a noncommissioned officer; or any other Soldier or individual.