BOARD DATE:	  21 September 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100010077 


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 he has asked in the past for an upgrade of his discharge, but there appears to be no record of his requests.  He contends that he was discharged because of poor performance but was not even working in his military occupational specialty (MOS).  He received awards for his performance in work outside of his MOS.  He was affected with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the time and is still suffering from the condition.  PTSD led him to start using drugs.  He requested help but instead was discharged.  He claims to be represented by the Texas Veterans Commission and understands that he can ask for assistance from the American Legion or the Disabled American Veterans.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation 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.  On 7 August 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 62B (Construction Equipment Repairer).  He attained the rank of private first class, pay grade E-3 and was discharged on 30 March 1988.

3.  On 31 March 1988, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army and was assigned for duty in the Republic of Korea with the 44th Engineer Battalion.

4.  In April 1989, the applicant returned to the United States for duty at Fort Hood, Texas.  He was assigned to the 15th Military Intelligence Battalion.

5.  During the period 26 September 1990 to 4 April 1991, the applicant served in Saudi Arabia in support of Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm.  He was advanced to specialist, pay grade E-4 on 1 November 1990.

6.  On 23 July 1991, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment for being absent from his unit for approximately 2 days.  

7.  On 12 August 1991, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being considered for separation due to unsatisfactory performance.  The commander cited as reasons for this action the applicant's numerous bad checks, his breaking of restriction and not reporting for extra duty, and his being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer on two occasions.

8.  The applicant consulted with counsel, but did not indicate his desires regarding the separation action other than to waive consideration by an administrative separation board.

9.  On 12 August 1991, the applicant’s commander recommended that he be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.

10.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that he be issued a DD Form 256A (General Discharge Certificate).  He was not transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve.

11.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 21 August 1991.  He had completed 3 years, 4 months, and 21 days of creditable active duty service.
12.  On 24 December 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

13.  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.

14.  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.  The applicant contends that his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable because he was and is suffering from PTSD.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant has not provided any evidence or sufficiently mitigating argument to warrant upgrade of his discharge.

5.  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.




      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20100010077





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100010077



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1