IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  29 September 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110006201 


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:

* correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his social security number (SSN) as xxx-x3-xxxx
* an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the incorrect SSN on his DD Form 214 resulted from a typographical error.  

3.  The applicant provides a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim), dated 29 March 2011, and his social security card.

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 24 March 1980.  He completed one station unit training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  His DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States) shows he enlisted using SSN xxx-x4-xxxx.

3.  Records show he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on five separate occasions on:

* 4 August 1980, for being absent without leave (AWOL), from on or about 14 July to 17 July 1980
* 2 September 1980, for being AWOL from on or about 28 July to 4 August 1980
* 28 November 1980, for being AWOL from on or about 22 November to 
24 November 1980
* 22 December 1980, for failing to obey a lawful order on 15 December 1980
* 31 December 1980, for failing to obey a lawful order on 22 December 1980

4.  On 16 October 1980, he was convicted by a special court-martial for being AWOL from on or about 8 September to 2 October 1980.  

5.  On 2 February 1981, his commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct – frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

6.  On 3 February 1981, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the possible effects of a UOTHC discharge, and of the rights available to him.  He waived consideration of his case by and a personal appearance before an administrative separation board.  He also elected not to make any statements in his own behalf.

7.  On 13 February 1981, the separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and directed the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.  On 17 February 1981, he was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 confirms he was discharged by reason of frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He completed 7 months and 14 days of total active service, with approximately 97 days of lost time due to being AWOL or in confinement.  The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was private (PVT)/
E-1.

8.  His Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) does not contain any documents that show the current SSN.  All documents in his MPRJ show his SSN as xxx-x4-xxxx.  When required, he authenticated these documents by placing his signature where necessary.

9.  He provides his social security card; however, it is not dated, so there is no way to determine when his SSN was changed.    

10.  On 2 December 2002, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge; however, the ADRB did not consider his request since it exceeded that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The regulation directs, in pertinent part, that the purpose of the separation document is to provide the individual with documentary evidence of his or her military service at the time of release from active duty, retirement or discharge.  It is important that information entered on the form be complete and accurate, reflecting the conditions as they existed at the time of separation.  

12.  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 UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  

13.  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.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, 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 evidence of record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 March 1980, using SSN xxx-x4-xxxx.  He consistently used this SSN throughout his entire period of military service.  He authenticated several documents by placing his signature in the appropriate place indicating this was his correct SSN.  He did not use the SSN that he now claims is correct during his period of service.

2.  For historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the integrity of its records.  The data and information contained in those records should reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created.  There is a reluctance to recommend that those records be changed.  While it is understandable that he now desires to record his new SSN in his military records, there is not a sufficiently compelling reason for compromising the integrity of the Army's records.

3.  Therefore, absent convincing independent and verifiable evidence to the contrary, it is presumed the applicant's military service records, including the DD Form 214, were correct at the time and there is insufficient evidence to grant the requested relief.

4.  The applicant's request for the upgrade of his discharge was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support this request.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The evidence of record shows he consulted with counsel and was advised of the basis for the separation action.

5.  Based on his record of indiscipline, including multiple instances of nonjudicial punishment and a special court-martial, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel and his punishment was not excessive.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable or a general discharge.

6.  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)                                         AR20100022260



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110006201



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1