Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008524
Original file (20100008524.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  22 April 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100008524 


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 an upgrade of his general discharge (GD), under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge (HD).   

2.  The applicant states he is making the above request to benefit him and his family.  As it currently stands he is unable to access resources for further education and he believes an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to pursue a higher education and get a degree thereby improving his ability to provide for his family. 

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 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 military record was not available for review.  However, there was sufficient evidence available to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.  This case is being considered primarily using the applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  

3.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 
20 September 1988.  It further shows after successfully completing basic combat training and advanced individual training (AIT) he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 67N (Helicopter Repairer).  The highest grade he attained was private first class/pay grade E-3. 

4.  The facts and circumstances related to the applicant's separation processing are not available.  However, a properly-constituted DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance with a GD.  The DD Form 214 also shows the applicant held the rank of private pay grade E-2 on the date of discharge and that he had completed a total of 2 years, 1 month, and 20 days of active military service.  

5.  There is no indication that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitation.  

6.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.  The separation authority may issue an HD or GD to Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance as warranted by their military record.

7.  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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  

8.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  This regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge was carefully considered.  Although the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge processing are not available, the evidence does include a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the authority and reason for the applicant's discharge, and there is a presumption of government regularity attached to this document.  

2.  By regulation, commanders will separate a member under chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, when in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.  

3.  Further, the applicant's DD Form 214 documents no acts of valor or significant achievement warranting special recognition that would mitigate the applicant's lack of performance.  Therefore, no basis has been established to support upgrading his GD to an HD.  

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show 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)                                         AR20100008524



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         A

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002304

    Original file (20090002304.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. However, although the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge processing are not available, the evidence does include a properly constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the authority and reason for the applicant's discharge, and there is a presumption of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008060C070206

    Original file (20050008060C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 February 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed he receive a GD. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010746

    Original file (20080010746.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). However, there is insufficient evidence to support granting the requested relief.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006882

    Original file (20120006882.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). There is no indication the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15 year statute of limitations, or that he ever previously applied to this Board for an upgrade of his discharge. The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024389

    Original file (20110024389.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). There is no indication the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15 year statute of limitations. The service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105253C070208

    Original file (2004105253C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 March 1985, the applicant's commander recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that on 22 March 1985, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance with a GD. The applicant's discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014385C080407

    Original file (20070014385C080407.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    John G. Heck | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant's record documents a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions, and an extensive record of formal counseling for a myriad of performance and conduct issues. On 24 April 2002, the unit commander...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002013

    Original file (20120002013.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 2 November 1990, the unit commander notified the applicant that action was being taken to initiate the applicant’s separation under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), by reason of unsatisfactory performance and that it was being recommended the applicant receive a GD. _______ _ _X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017767

    Original file (20100017767.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 December 1983, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action on him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. On 19 December 1983, the separation authority directed the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, with a general discharge. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged on 28 December 1983...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017625C070206

    Original file (20050017625C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed that he receive a GD. The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms he completed a total of 4 years, 1 month, and 16 days of active military service, and that held the rank of PV2 at the time. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in...