IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  18 August 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110002595 


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 willing to fulfill his obligation to the Army but he was let go due to minor indiscretions.  He contends he is a good member of society and he has worked hard all his life to be one.

3.  The applicant provides his General Discharge Certificate.

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 5 June 1984.  He completed initial entry training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewman).

3.  In a letter, dated 1 February 1985, he was informed that his installation vehicle driving privilege was suspended due to a driving under the influence (DUI) offense.

4.  He was issued a General Officer Letter of Reprimand (GOLOR) on 7 February 1985 for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated on 31 January 1985.

5.  In a letter, dated 26 March 1985, he was informed that his installation vehicle driving privilege was revoked for a period of 1 year due to his DUI conviction.

6.  On 11 April 1985, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of a Summarized Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for disobeying a lawful order on 9 April 1985.

7.  In a letter, dated 6 May 1985, he was informed that his installation vehicle driving privilege was revoked for a period of 5 years due to failing to obey a lawful general order by operating a vehicle while his post driving privileges were suspended.

8.  On 10 May 1985, he was issued a second GOLOR for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated on 4 May 1985.

9.  On 23 May 1985, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for failing to obey a lawful order by a general officer by wrongfully operating a motor vehicle while having his installation vehicle driving privilege revoked and for operating a vehicle while drunk.

10.  On 2 July 1985, he was advised by his unit commander that he was initiating action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b based on his acts of misconduct and that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was also advised of his right to:

* consult with legal counsel 
* to present his case before an administrative discharge board
* submit statements in his own behalf
* waive his rights in writing

11.  On 3 July 1985, he consulted with counsel and requested consideration and personal appearance before an administrative separation board.  He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.  He acknowledged he understood he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge was issued to him.  He acknowledged he understood that if he received a character of service of less than honorable, he may apply to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or this Board for an upgrade of his discharge; however, he realized that an act of consideration by either board did not imply his discharge would be upgraded.

12.  On 13 August 1985, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant's recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, with a general discharge.  On 20 August 1985, he was discharged accordingly.  Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the entry "Misconduct - Pattern of Misconduct."

13.  There is no evidence that indicates he applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge.

14.  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 a pattern of misconduct.  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.

15.  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 an upgrade of his discharge has been carefully considered.  

2.  His record of indiscipline includes two GOLORs for DUI offenses and NJP for two instances of disobeying lawful orders and for operating a vehicle while drunk. Based on this record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel.

3.  The available evidence also confirms his separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant’s claim of good post-service conduct is noted.  However, it does not sufficiently mitigate his repeated acts of indiscipline during his military service.

5.  In view of the foregoing, 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 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)                                         AR20110002595



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110002595



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1