BOARD DATE:	  10 November 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100012577 


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 under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states there is no error or injustice with his discharge.  It has been more than 17 years since his discharge and he wants it upgraded.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation.

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 12 January 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63W (Wheel Vehicle Repairer).
3.  The applicant served through a series of reenlistments and assignments both in the United States and overseas.  He attained the rank of sergeant/pay grade E-5 on 4 November 1981.

4.  The applicant's records show:

	a.  that he failed to pay a balance due of about $583.44 for repairs to his vehicle prior to leaving Germany in 1989;

	b.  that his check-writing privileges had been suspended and he was required to complete a checkbook maintenance class;

	c.  that in 1990 he was delinquent on two notes held by the Fort Sill National Bank;

	d.  that he received a letter of reprimand, dated 20 July 1990, for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level that exceeded Georgia law;

	e.  that his driving privileges were suspended for 1 year effective 15 July 1990; and

	f.  that he was barred to reenlistment on 27 July 1990 due to a history of indebtedness and traffic citations for speeding, driving under the influence, and driving with a suspended license.

5.  On 4 November 1991, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for being incapacitated for proper performance of duty due to overindulgence in intoxicating liquor.

6.  On 18 November 1991, the applicant's commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 14, for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.   The commander stated that rehabilitation would not be in the best interest of the U.S. Army because it would not produce a quality Soldier.

7.  On 18 November 1991, the applicant consulted with counsel concerning his rights.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

8.  On 5 December 1991, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate).

9.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 30 December 1991 under honorable conditions.  He completed 14 years, 11 months, and 19 days of creditable active duty service.

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

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense that could result in a punitive discharge, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

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 that his general under honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded to honorable because it has been more than 17 years since his discharge.

2.  The record shows the applicant had a history of indebtedness and traffic citations for speeding, driving under the influence, and driving with a suspended license.  This behavior clearly shows a pattern of misconduct.

3.  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.

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

5.  The mere passage of time does not provide justification for an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.

6.  Based on the applicant's record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel.  This misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his 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)                                         AR20100012577



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100012577



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1