BOARD DATE:	  16 August 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110002994 


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, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he is now medically disabled and not able to work.  He desires to qualify for Department of Veterans Affairs medical services.

3.  The applicant provides copies of a certificate of achievement, documents related to his civilian education, and five third-party character references.

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 in Nashville, Tennessee, on 8 April 1976 for a period of 3 years.  He completed basic training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and advanced individual training as a light weapons infantryman at Fort Benning, Georgia, before being transferred to the Berlin Brigade in Germany on 14 August 1976.  He was advanced to pay grade E-4 on 12 July 1977.  On 10 December 1978, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.

3.  On 11 December 1978, he reenlisted for a period of 4 years and a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB).

4.  He departed Germany on 6 June 1980 for assignment to Fort Stewart, Georgia.  He reported to Fort Stewart on 13 July 1980.

5.  On 30 November 1980, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.

6.  On 1 February 1982, the applicant's commander initiated action to bar him from reenlistment based on his disciplinary record, his failure to follow instructions, his disobedience of a lawful order, and his failure to report for duty.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and the appropriate commander approved the bar.

7.  On 18 March 1982, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 21 January to 5 March 1982 (43 days).

8.  On 22 May 1982, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 14, for misconduct due to his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities and an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts.

9.  After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant waived all of his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

10.  On 8 May 1982, the appropriate authority (a major general) approved the recommendation for discharge and directed his discharge under other than honorable conditions.

11.  Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 13 May 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 due to misconduct based on his involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities and an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts.  He completed 3 years, 3 months, and 14 days of active service during his current enlistment for a total of 5 years, 11 months and 14 days of total active service.

12.  On 1 September 1983, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge to a general discharge.  On 6 June 1984 after considering all of the facts of his case, the ADRB determined his discharge was both proper and equitable under the circumstances and voted unanimously to deny his request.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, and commission of a serious offense.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

14.  Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 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.

15.  Paragraph 3-7b of Army Regulation 635-200 provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.   The applicant's contentions and supporting documents have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the nature of his offenses.  The applicant's overall service simply did not rise to the level of a discharge under honorable conditions and the Board does not upgrade discharges solely for the purpose of qualifying an individual for benefits.

2.  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.  Accordingly, the characterization and the narrative reason for separation were appropriate for the circumstances of his case.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

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)                                         AR20110002994



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110002994



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1