BOARD DATE:	  15 December 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110013239 


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 the general discharge (GD) be removed from his records or upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his discharge is unjust because he requested help while assigned to his unit.  He claims he was a good Soldier until he began having issues with his now ex-wife who cheated on him with another man and a child was born as a result.  He claims he experienced a lot of stress and he did not know how to deal with it.  He has since learned the best stress reliever is to focus on himself and in August 2010 he received his bachelor’s degree.  He is currently enrolled in an "A&P program."  He states he believes he has earned the right to have his records upgraded.   

3.  The applicant provides college transcripts and a Bachelor of Science in Professional Aeronautics in support of his application.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 February 1999 and he was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewman).

2.  The record confirms the applicant was advanced to the rank of private first class/pay grade E-3 on 1 May 1987 and that this is the highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty.  His record documents no valor or significant achievement.
3.  The applicant's disciplinary record includes extensive formal counseling by members of his chain of command between 2 June 2004 and 10 May 2005 for a myriad of duty performance and conduct related issues that include missing movement, multiple incidents of failing to obey lawful orders, failing to maintain cleanliness of his barracks room, failing to report to formations, and making a false official statement to a noncommissioned officer.  He also accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on three separate occasions between 27 July 2004 and 21 November 2005.  

4. On 8 December 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b, by reason of misconduct.  The commander cited the applicant’s record of formal counseling for a myriad of performance and conduct related issues and his record of NJP as the basis for taking the action. 

5.  On 12 December 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the separation action, its effects, and of the rights available to him.  The applicant agreed to waive consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent on receiving a GD.  

6.  On 17 December 2005, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation action for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 14, and directed the applicant receive a GD.  On 23 February 1999, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

7.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued to the applicant upon his discharge shows he held the rank of private/E-2 on the date of discharge, and that he completed a total of 6 years, 10 months, and 14 days of active military service.  

8.  On 19 January 2011, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of the applicant’s entire record of service and the issues he presented, determined his discharge was proper and equitable and voted unanimously to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge and/or to change the reason for separation.  

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel from the Army.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave.
10.  Paragraph 14-3 of Army Regulation 635-200 contains guidance on characterization of service for members separated under chapter 14.  It states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  The separation authority may direct a GD if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record.  It further states a characterization of honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be inappropriate.  An HD may be approved only by the commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction or higher authority unless authority is properly delegated.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request that his discharge be removed from his record or upgraded because it is unjust has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support his claim of injustice.  

2.  The applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

3.  By regulation, an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct.  Clearly, the length and honorable nature of the applicant's overall record of service was the basis for him receiving a GD instead of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The record confirms he properly received a GD in accordance with the terms of his own conditional waiver request.  It is equally clear the applicant’s record of misconduct diminished his overall record of service below that meriting a fully HD.  

4.  The applicant’s post service accomplishments are noteworthy; however, alone they are not sufficiently mitigating to support an upgrade of his discharge.  Absent any evidence of error or injustice in the discharge process, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support an upgrade of his discharge.  Further, there are no regulatory provisions of law or regulation that would allow the removal of his discharge from his record. 



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)                                         AR20110013239



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110013239



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1