IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    28 September 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100008917 


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 his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he feels he was wrongfully discharged.  He adds that he would like his discharge upgraded so he can receive benefits under the GI Bill. 

3.  The applicant does not provide any additional documents in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 January 2000.  

2.  On 6 October 2005, the applicant received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for driving a motor vehicle on 17 September 2005 with a blood alcohol level content of .14 percent.

3.  On 4 November 2005, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for physically controlling a vehicle on 17 September 2005 while drunk.  His punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-4, a forfeiture of $938.00 pay for 2 months, 45 days of restriction (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty.


4.  On 7 July 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend that he be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, commission of the following serious offenses:  he wrongfully operated a vehicle while under the influence on 4 July 2002, 21 October 2002, 23 September 2005, and 3 June 2006.  He wrongfully operated a vehicle with a suspended/revoked license on 3 February 2004 and 
2 August 2004.  He operated a vehicle without insurance on 3 February 2004 and wrongfully assaulted a female by pushing her.  

5.  On 8 July 2006, the applicant consulted with military counsel.  After being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation and its effects and the rights available to him, the applicant elected consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.  The applicant also stated that he would submit a conditional waiver for a general discharge.  The applicant acknowledged he understood that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued.  He further acknowledged he understood that as the result of issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, he may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws and that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  He acknowledged that if he received a less than honorable characterization of service, he may make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for an upgrade of his discharge.  However, he acknowledged he understood that an act of consideration by either board did not imply that his discharge would be upgraded. 

6.  On 23 August 2006, the applicant was notified to appear before an Administrative Separation Board.  However, on 7 September 2006, the applicant waived consideration of his case by the administrative board and elected to submit a letter on his behalf.  

7.  In the applicant's letter, dated 6 September 2006, he apologized to his chain of command for his misconduct.  He explained that his drinking problem had ended his marriage.  He offered that his career in the Army was the greatest thing that had ever happened to him and requested that he be retained in the Army.

8.  On 11 September 2006, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for commission of a serious offense.  He directed that the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.


9.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 22 September 2006 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The applicant was credited with completing 6 years, 
8 months, and 12 days of active service.  

10.  On 10 March 2009, the applicant appealed to the ADRB to upgrade his discharge.  On 5 July 2009, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade.  The ADRB determined that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14-12 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for acts or patterns of misconduct.  Paragraph 14-12c states that specific categories of commission of a serious military or civil offense include abuse of illegal drugs.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  Additionally, paragraph 14-3 states that an under other than honorable discharge certificate is normally appropriate for a member who is discharged for acts and patterns of misconduct.

12.  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.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded so that he may be eligible for Department of Veterans Affairs benefits.  However, there are no provisions in Army regulations that allow the upgrade of a discharge for the sole purpose of securing veterans benefits.  The applicant must provide evidence to prove the discharge was rendered unjustly, in error, or that there were mitigating circumstances which warrants the upgrade.

2.  The available evidence confirms that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicant’s rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The record further shows the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.  


3.  The applicant’s record of indiscipline does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

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)                                         AR20100008917



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100008917



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1