IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  14 October 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100011843 


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, in effect, his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

2.  The applicant states:

* There is no error or injustice on the part of the U.S. Army
* There was only the error in judgment of an 18 year old boy who was essentially forced into the military at age 17 by parents who didn't understand the self esteem issue that plagued their son
* He has always been disappointed with himself for the ignorant selfish decisions which cost him both a top secret security clearance and a promising military career

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 was born on 28 August 1965.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 June 1983 for a period of 4 years.  He successfully completed basic training.

3.  On 14 May 1984, while in advanced individual training (AIT), nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for larceny.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 and a forfeiture of pay.

4.  On 13 July 1984, while in AIT, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to repair.  His punishment consisted of correctional custody.

5.  On 28 August 1984, while in AIT, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to repair.  His punishment consisted of correctional custody and a forfeiture of pay.

6.  Between 20 May 1984 and 4 October 1984, the applicant was counseled on numerous occasions for various infractions which included violating curfew, failing to comply with instructions/orders, tardiness, missing formations, failure to repair, leaving military property unsecure, and leaving guard duty without authority.

7.  On 15 October 1984, the applicant was notified of his pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  His unit commander cited the applicant's three NJPs and his continued failures to repair.

8.  On 17 October 1984, the applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged notification of his pending separation.  He also acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

9.  On 24 October 1984, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.
    
10.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge on 
29 October 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 
13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served a total of 1 year, 4 months, and 7 days of creditable active service.  

11.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

13.  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.  Age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor.  Although the applicant was 17 years of age when he enlisted, he served 16 months of service prior to his discharge.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he failed to do so.

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

4.  The applicant's record of service included adverse counseling statements and three nonjudicial punishments.  As a result, his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant 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)                                         AR20100011843





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100011843



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1