IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 November 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110010150 


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 to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he made many mistakes in the past and he is trying to correct himself as he believes his past actions were that of a child.  Shortly after his discharge from the Army, he was diagnosed with a mental illness which his doctor said he was born with and may have been triggered later in life by a head injury.  He has had many run-ins with authorities to include prison sentences to serve.  Over the last few years he has been learning how to function with his illness and is attempting to better himself.  He is currently enrolled in an online university and is asking for another chance to better himself by having his discharge upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), three letters of support, and a student class schedule.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 July 1999 and he held military occupational specialty 55B (Ammunition Specialist).  He was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16), and the Parachutist Badge.  

2.  On 1 May 2000, he received a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) for drunk driving.  The GOMOR was subsequently filed in the performance section of his official military personnel file.

3.  On 9 May 2000, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failing to control a vehicle and driving while intoxicated.

4.  On 1 March 2001, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense.  Specifically, he cited the applicant's Article 15, his assaulting and being disrespectful to an noncommissioned officer (NCO), being drunk on duty, and underage drinking.  The commander also stated he was recommending the applicant be discharged with a general discharge.

5.  On 1 March 2001, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of the commander's proposed discharge action, the basis for the contemplated separation action for misconduct, the type of discharge he could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights that were available to him.  On the same date, he declined consultation with legal counsel.

6.  On 2 March 2001, he was found guilty by a summary court-martial of one specification each of being disrespectful to an NCO, violating a lawful regulation, and being drunk on duty.

7.  On 7 March 2001, his senior commander recommended that he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct - due to the commission of a serious offense with the issuance of a general discharge.

8.  On 15 March 2001, the separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 12-14c for misconduct - commission of a serious offense and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 12 April 2001, he was discharged accordingly.

9.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct with a general discharge.  He completed a total of 1 year, 9 months, and 5 days of creditable active service.

10.  On 10 February 2009, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined he was properly and equitably discharged.

11.  The applicant provides three letters of support, dated 15 February and 3 March 2011, that all stated he was well mannered, trustworthy, respectful, hard working, and a positive member of the community.  He also provides a class schedule, dated 21 April 2011, that shows he was enrolled in Colorado Technical University Online.

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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct that a general discharge be issued if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record.

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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant demonstrated he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel as evidenced by the NJP he received for driving while intoxicated and the summary court-martial he received for being disrespectful to an NCO and being drunk on duty.  Accordingly, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him.

2.  His separation action was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  Based on his overall record, the applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

3.  Although the applicant's post-service conduct may be noteworthy, it does not mitigate the fact that he was found guilty of assaulting an NCO and being drunk on duty, and does not warrant the relief requested.

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)                                         AR20110010150





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110010150



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1