IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  23 June 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100030287 


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 the narrative reason for separation on his 
DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed. 

2.  He states, in effect, his narrative reason for separation is unjust and that it does not reflect his character of service.  He states that he is a Gulf War veteran who served faithfully for 13 years and earned his honorable discharge.  His discharge was upgraded from under other than honorable conditions to under honorable conditions (general) and he believes the narrative reason for separation should reflect the same.  He states the Army was reducing it forces, he was a staff sergeant, and there was a zero tolerance policy for the incident that led to his discharge.  As a direct result of those factors, he lost his career, family, home, dignity, and respect.  He believes that it is only fair that his narrative reason for separation be changed to reflect the character of service he gave to his country.

3.  He provides no additional documentation in support of this case.

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 4 October 1979.  On 1 August 1989, he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6.

3.  He completed numerous military courses, to include the Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course (BNCOC) and Primary NCOC.  He was also awarded the Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, and three awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal, among other service medals, ribbons, and badges.

4.  A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 16 September 1992, shows charges were preferred against him for wrongfully possessing .75 grams of hashish.

5.  On 13 October 1992, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

6.  He indicated in his request that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions; that he may be deprived of many or all Army 
benefits; that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs; and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He also acknowledged that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  On 6 November 1992, the appropriate authority approved his request for discharge for the good of the service.  He directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.  


8.  On 17 November 1992, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 
10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of "For the Good of the Service – In Lieu of Court Martial" with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  He completed a total of 13 years, 1 month, and 14 days of total active service.

9.  On 9 August 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant’s case and after careful consideration of the evidence, the board voted to upgrade the characterization of his service to general, under honorable conditions.  However, the narrative reason for separation and the separation authority were determined to be proper and equitable; the board voted not to change them.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. An under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends the narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214 is unjust and does not reflect his character of service.  The available evidence confirms he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  After consulting with defense counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The record further confirms all requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 

2.  His case was appropriately reviewed by the ADRB and that board voted to upgrade the characterization of his service based on his overall record of service; however, his narrative reason for separation and the separation authority were determined to be proper and equitable; therefore, the ADRB voted not to change them.  


3.  The available record shows his request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial was approved by proper authority, and Item 25 of his DD Form 214 accurately reflects the regulatory authority for separation.  The applicant has established no basis to overturn the ADRB's decision.

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)                                         AR20100030287



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100030287



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1