IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 11 October 2011
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110008463
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 his general discharge be upgraded.
2. The applicant states he was a young adult who made bad choices. Since his discharge his conduct has changed. He is pursuing a masters degree in business administration with hopes of a prosperous future. He is requesting a second chance at an opportunity to have a brighter future as a veteran.
3. The applicant did not provide any additional documentation.
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 applicants 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 applicants 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 3 September 1986. He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13E (Cannon Fire Direction Specialist).
3. On 15 June 1987, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being disorderly, underage drinking of alcohol (two incidents), and drunk driving.
4. On 17 July 1987, he was found guilty by a summary court-martial of failure to go to his place of duty (two specifications), being drunk on duty, and breaking restriction.
5. On 26 August 1987, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being considered for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The commander stated the action was based on the applicants NJP and summary court-martial.
6. The applicant consulted with counsel. He acknowledged his rights and elected to not submit a statement in his own behalf.
7. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.
8. Accordingly, he was discharged on 2 October 1987, with a general discharge. He had completed 1 year and 7 days of total active service. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows in item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) that he was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar.
9. There is no record that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.
a. Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commanders 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.
b. 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 members 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 applicants administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. The applicant has not provided any evidence or sufficiently mitigating argument to warrant upgrade of his discharge.
4. 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) AR20110008463
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021789
On 11 December 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, in the rank/grade of PFC/E-3 with a general, under honorable conditions characterization of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019517
The applicant requests, in effect: a. his general discharge be upgraded to honorable; b. his rank/pay grade be restored to specialist four (SP4)/E-4; c. the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar be added to his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); and d. completion of the pre-Ranger Course be added to his DD Form 214. There is no evidence that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014183
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his home of record (HOR) as TX. On 11 August 1992, his unit commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The evidence of record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and he reenlisted once...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004915
c. His AIT and 5-week BSEP should be shown in item 14 of his DD Form 214. d. He was told his discharge would be upgraded to honorable after 2 years. There is no indication in the available records that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations. Since his record of service included adverse counseling statements, a bar to reenlistment, and two NJP's, his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010625
On 21 December 1987, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, due to unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. There is nothing in his personnel service record that shows he was issued a permanent physical profile, he was unable to perform his infantry duties, or that his alleged medical condition...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001515
His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he was promoted to private first class (PFC/E-3) on 5 September 1988 and this was the highest rank/grade he held on active duty. On 2 February 1990, the unit commander notified the applicant he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, paragraph 13-2, for unsatisfactory performance with a GD. Army Regulation 635-200 further states that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003728
On 11 June 1987, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), for unsatisfactory performance. The evidence of record shows that the applicant displayed a pattern of unsatisfactory performance and did not respond to counseling by his chain of command regarding his responsibility to meet Army standards. In order to justify correction of a military record,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014326
On 14 October 1987, the applicant's company commander notified the applicant of the proposed action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct), paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct consisting of failing to be at his appointed place of duty, dereliction of duty, poor performance, insubordination, failure to obey orders, and numerous negative counseling statements. He directed the applicant be separated with a general under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001810
On 19 August 1988, consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge from the Army under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance and directed his service be characterized as under honorable conditions (general). On 24 August 1988, the applicant was accordingly discharged. The applicant's service medical records are not available for review with this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021588
He was discharged with a general discharge on 6 February 1987 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant's record of service included adverse counseling statements and one NJP.