IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    18 October 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110009460 


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 that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that after returning from rotation at the National Training Center he failed to make the 2-mile run in the allotted time during his Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and it was the first and only time he failed a Physical Training (PT) test.  However, he was pushed out of the service and given a general discharge.  He goes on to state that his discharge was inequitable because it was not consistent with the policies and traditions of the service because normally individuals were afforded the opportunity to attend remedial PT and re-test; however, he was not.  Additionally, the fact that it was based on one isolated incident makes it inequitable.

3.  The applicant provides a one-page statement explaining his application.

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 10 September 1991 for a period of 2 years and 18 weeks and training as an armor crewman.  He completed his one-station unit training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and was transferred to Fort Carson, Colorado for his first and only permanent duty assignment.

3.  On 18 March 1992 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being absent from his place of duty.  He was also enrolled in the overweight program in March 1992.

4.  On 11 June 1992 the applicant was counseled regarding his failure of the APFT on 10 June 1992.  The applicant failed the 2-mile run event and was advised that he was enrolled in the remedial PT program.

5.  On 17 August 1992 the applicant was counseled regarding his failure to meet weight control standards after being in the weight control program for over 6 months and for not losing weight for 2 consecutive months.  

6.  On 9 September 1992 he was counseled for being 40 pounds overweight and for failing the APFT (2-mile run event) on 4 September 1992.

7.  On 15 September 1992 he was counseled regarding his two consecutive APFT failures and notified that separation procedures would be initiated to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The applicant concurred with the counseling.

8.  On 25 September 1992 the commander officially notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance due to his two consecutive APFT failures. 

9.  On 28 September 1992 the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

10.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 7 October 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 1 year and 28 days of active service.

11.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board  for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsatisfactory performance and who were unsuitable for further military service.  An individual could be separated for unsatisfactory performance if it was determined that the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.  A discharge under honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

13.  Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel) 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his overall record of service and his repeated failure to meet weight control standards and pass the APFT after being in the weight control and remedial PT programs.  His service simply does not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge.

4.  Accordingly, there does not appear to be any basis to grant his request for an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable.




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)                                         AR20110009460





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110009460



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1