BOARD DATE:	  9 August 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110002509 


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 an upgrade of his general discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was told his discharge would be upgraded 6 months after his separation date.  He adds that his discharge was due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

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.  His military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 November 1988.  He completed initial entry training and was awarded the military occupational specialty of patient administration specialist.  The highest rank/grade he attained was specialist/E-4.

3.  His records show he served in Southwest Asia from September 1990 to April 1991.

4.  His records contain numerous DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Form) indicating he received negative general counseling for actions such as being late for duty on many occasions, failing to report to his appointed place of duty, failing to keep his squad leader informed, failing to repair, being delinquent in the payment of his debts, writing checks with insufficient funds to honor those checks, and failing to meet his obligations for financial support for his dependents.

5.  He was given a mental evaluation in August 1992.  The evaluation revealed no problems or disorders and found him to meet retention requirements.

6.  On 15 September 1992, the applicant's commander advised him that he was initiating action to separate him for a pattern of misconduct under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separations).  His commander stated the reasons for his proposed action were the applicant's arrest for driving while intoxicated and driving on a suspended license, his arrest for failing to appear in court for a dishonored check, and his numerous counseling statements for failing to repair and disobeying lawful orders.  His commander further stated he was recommending the applicant receive a general discharge.  He was advised of his rights in regard to this action.

7.  On 17 September 1992, he acknowledged receipt of notification of the separation action against him.  He indicated his desire to consult with counsel and to submit matters on his own behalf.  While these latter documents are not available for review, his records show his administrative discharge proceedings were reviewed by legal personnel and the file was found administratively sufficient.

8.  On 23 September 1992, the appropriate authority approved his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12.  He directed the applicant be given a general discharge.

9.  His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 9 October 1992 with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b.  He completed 3 years, 10 months, and 6 days of active military service.

10.  There is no indication he 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, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is 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.

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 his discharge should be upgraded, in effect, because PTSD was the basis for his problems while he was in the service.  There is no evidence in his record and he has not submitted any substantive evidence showing he was diagnosed with or being treated for PTSD while serving in the military.  He provided no explanation as to how his alleged PTSD excuses or justifies his behavior.  Therefore, his contention of having suffered from PTSD and that being the cause of his discharge is not considered a basis to upgrade a properly-issued discharge.

2.  His received negative general counseling multiple times for actions such as being late for duty on many occasions, failing to report to his appointed place of duty, failing to repair, not obeying lawful orders, being delinquent in the payment of his debts, writing checks with insufficient funds to honor those checks, and failing to meet his obligations for financial support for his dependents.

3.  Based on the applicant's record of misconduct, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct rendered his service insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

4.  The available evidence confirms the applicant's rights were protected throughout the discharge process.

5.  The Army does not have and has never had any policy to automatically upgrade a discharge based on the passage of time.

6.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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 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)                                         AR20110002509



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110002509



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1