IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  21 September 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100010926 


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 under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.  

2.  The applicant states he was discharged because of his spouse.  He was directed to move to the barracks by his first sergeant and his spouse did whatever she wanted to do.  

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and two character references 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 February 1987 and was discharged on 15 October 1989 for immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 15 October 1989.  

3.  Between February 1991 and July 1993, the applicant received numerous adverse counseling statements for failure to control his finances, financial indebtedness, failure to be at the appointed place at the appointed time, and misconduct.  His service record also contains several notifications of dishonored checks.  

4.  On 28 October 1993, the company commander notified the applicant of the proposed recommendation to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for a pattern of misconduct.  The company commander stated that his unit has received numerous letters of indebtedness and notices of checks being returned due to insufficient funds, but despite sufficient counseling he still continued to avoid paying his debts and continued to write checks which were returned.  He was advised of his rights.  

5.  The applicant acknowledged notification of separation action, consulted with legal counsel, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general under honorable conditions, and submitted statements in his own behalf.  His statements are not available.  

6.  On 6 December 1993, the separation authority waived administrative separation board and approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b by reason of misconduct – pattern of misconduct with service characterized as general under honorable discharge.

7.  The applicant was discharged on 28 December 1993 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct - pattern of misconduct.  He completed 6 years, 10 months, and 12 days total active military service.

8.  The applicant provided a self-authored statement in support of his claim.  He has applied to numerous police and sheriff agencies for jobs to support his family and himself and was told they were looking for an honorable discharge.  He expressed that he would like to continue a career in law enforcement and hopes this would be possible with the assistance of the Board.  

9.  In support of his claim, the applicant provided two character references who attest to his work history and dedication to provide for his family.  
10.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.  

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed 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 
would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record.  Only a general court-martial convening authority may approve an honorable discharge or delegate approval authority for an honorable discharge under this provision of regulation

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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’s contentions in regard to him being discharged due to his spouse are noted.  However, the evidence of record does not support his claims.  

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant received numerous adverse counseling statements for failure to control his finances and financial indebtedness.  His service record also includes notifications of dishonored checks.  

3.  There is no evidence the applicant sought assistance from his chain of command or any other community support agencies on a way to resolve his financial problems within established Army procedures.

4.  It appears the separation authority determined that the applicant's overall service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty to warrant recommendation of a fully honorable discharge and appropriately characterized his service as general under honorable conditions.  
5.  The applicant’s self-authored statement and character references are noted.  However, these statements are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  

6.  After review of the evidence of this case, it is determined that the applicant has not presented sufficient evidence which warrants changing his general under honorable conditions discharge to fully honorable.

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)                                         AR20100010926





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100010926



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1