IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  9 August 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110002227 


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 upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was discharged due to family problems that required him to spend more time at home.  He claims he was told he could apply for an upgrade of his discharge because it was more for compassionate reasons based on his family situation.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 5 June 1985.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76V (Materiel Storage & Handling Specialist).  

3.  The applicant’s record shows private (PV2)/E-2 is the highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty.  The record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.

4.  The applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 3 July 1986 for indebtedness.  His punishment included a reduction to private (PV1)/E-1.

5.  The record does not contain a complete separation packet containing all the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation processing.  It does contain the unit commander’s recommendation for separation and a properly-constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that identifies the authority and reason for separation as Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 (Unsatisfactory Performance).  The DD Form 214 also confirms his service was characterized as "Under Honorable Conditions" indicating he received a general discharge.

6.  The unit commander’s recommendation for separation shows the action was being taken based on the applicant’s failure to maintain financial responsibility.  It further indicated the applicant was continually going into debt and made no effort to manage his obligations.  The commander further stated when plans were made for the applicant to deal with his debt, he failed to carry them out.  The commander indicated the applicant had been referred to Army Community Services for financial counseling on three separate occasions with no positive results.

7.  On 5 August 1986, the applicant was separated, in the rank of private (PV1)/E-1, after completing 1 year, 2 months, and 1 day of active military service.

8.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

9.  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.

10.  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’s request for upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge because his separation was the result of family problems has been carefully considered.  However, this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to support granting the requested relief.

2.  The evidence of record does not contain a complete separation packet containing all the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing.  However, it does include the unit commander's recommendation for separation that confirms the separation recommendation was based on the applicant’s failure to maintain financial responsibility and his failure to positively respond to repeated rehabilitation attempts.

3.  The record also contains a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that confirms the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  Absent any evidence of record or independent evidence provided by the applicant that shows an error or injustice related to his discharge processing, this document carries with it a presumption of Government regularity in the discharge process.

4.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  However, it does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of NJP and several incidents of indebtedness.  This record of misconduct clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable 


discharge.  As a result, his record did not support the issue of an honorable discharge by the separation authority at the time and does not support an upgrade now.

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)                                         AR20110002227



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110002227



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1