IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 17 January 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110011619
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 honorable.
2. The applicant states no contentions.
3. The applicant provides no additional evidence.
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. On 22 October 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 75C (Personnel Management Specialist). The highest pay grade held was specialist four/E-4.
3. On 4 June 1990, the applicant's commander notified the applicant of his intention to recommend him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The commander cited the applicant's numerous acts of misconduct to include poor duty performance, failing the Army Physical Fitness Test, writing bad checks, and traffic violations as the bases for his recommendation. Further, he cited that the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for:
* failure to repair on 26 October 1989
* failure to repair on 7 February 1990
* failure to repair (suspended reduction to E-3) on 8 March 1990
* failure to repair and vacation of the above suspended reduction to E-3 on 11 April 1990
4. On the same date, he acknowledged receipt of the commander's notification. He waived his right to counsel and did not elect to submit a statement in his own behalf.
5. His commander initiated a recommendation to separate the applicant due to unsatisfactory performance. He also requested that the requirement for rehabilitative transfer be waived because the applicant's performance continued to be substandard after numerous attempts to motivate him.
6. On 13 June 1990, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.
7. Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 21 June 1990. He completed 3 years and 8 months of creditable active service.
8. The Army Discharge Review Board disapproved his request for an upgrade of his discharge on 13 July 1992.
9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commanders judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.
10. 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 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 applicant contends his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable.
2. His administrative separation 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 reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. The available record shows he was counseled for various acts of misconduct to include traffic violations, poor duty performance, and writing bad checks. In addition he accepted non judicial punishment on four occasions as a result of his acts of indiscipline. His service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
4. In view of the foregoing, his request should be denied.
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) AR20110011619
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110011619
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106598C070208
On 30 October 1990, the applicant's commander initiated separation proceedings on him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 because of his demonstrated unsatisfactory performance even after formal counseling. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. He had acknowledged on his DA Form 3286-59/1 that his enlistment in the U. S. Army Reserve obligated him to a total of 8 years service unless he was sooner discharged...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012577
BOARD DATE: 10 November 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100012577 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states there is no error or injustice with his discharge. On 18 November 1991, the applicant's commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 14, for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019031
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to fully honorable. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. _______ _ 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011248C071029
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 12 January 1987, the applicant was released from active duty, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for Unsatisfactory Performance, with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions, and transferred to the U. S. Army Reserve. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009843
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 October 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110009843 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 15 May 1990, the applicant's 1SG recommended to the commander that separation action be initiated against the applicant for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13. On 10 July 1990, the separation authority approved his discharge for unsatisfactory performance under the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004638
The applicant states that it was understood in his unit that if you were unable to make it to post for formation, you could call your chain of command. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions. _______ _ 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020800
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. Each time he was counseled, he was advised that further misconduct could result in his separation for unsatisfactory performance or misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), or he could be processed for disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It appears the separation authority favorably considered his request...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010077
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 12 August 1991, the applicants commander recommended that he be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant contends that his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable because he was and is suffering from PTSD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018146
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. However, records show the applicant was 21 years of age at the time of his first offense. Based on these facts, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024389
The applicant requests his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). There is no indication the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15 year statute of limitations. The service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records.