IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	    24 January 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110014608 


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 upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was serving as an informant for the Criminal Investigation Command (CID) because there was an epidemic of illegal drugs in the area.  His commander found out about it and spread the word.  He goes on to state he was threatened and his rental car was damaged.  He further states he was hung out to dry for being a snitch.  He also states he has letters from officers and an E-8 saying it was nonsense and that it was a lynching to show others not to work with law enforcement officials.  He continues by stating he never received any punishment because he was too good of a Soldier, but his commander had connections and pushed his discharge through.  He states was a good Soldier and deserved an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant indicates he is submitting copies of letters he received; however, no such letters were received with 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 27 December 1991 for a period of 3 years and 17 weeks, training as an infantryman, airborne training, and assignment to the 82d Airborne Division.

3.  He completed his one-station unit training at Fort Benning, GA and he attended airborne training at Fort Benning as well.  He did not complete his airborne training; therefore, he could not be assigned to the 82d Airborne Division.  Accordingly, he was transferred to Hohenfels, Germany on 7 June 1992 for duty as a rifleman.  He was advanced to the rank/grade of specialist (SPC)/E-4 on 1 March 1993.

4.  On 6 January 1994, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant’s performance had been unsatisfactory, he had failed to respond to repeated verbal and written counseling, he had violated Army regulations, he had failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, he lied to commissioned and noncommissioned officers (NCOs), he failed to meet standards of appearance, he was involved in an incident of spousal abuse that was substantiated by the Family Advocacy Case Management Team (FACMT), and he had allowed his personal life to continually interfere with his work.  Among the enclosures with the recommendation for discharge were
19 negative counseling statements.

5.  The applicant exercised his right to consult with counsel.  He submitted four statements in his own behalf which consisted of a 2-page letter in which he asserted his chain of command was lying and they were out to get him because he turned into an informant.  He further contended that it was his chain of command that was lying and not him.  He also submitted a statement from his wife, who was also a Soldier, a memorandum from the reenlistment NCO, a memorandum from a second lieutenant, and a letter of support from the battalion chaplain.  Both the applicant and his spouse contended he was being set-up and 


requested that the proceedings be dismissed because he could not financially afford to be discharged due to the amount of debts they had incurred.  The applicant had over $1,600.00 of debt in the DPP (Deferred Payment Plan) with the military exchange.

6.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

7.  Accordingly, on 26 January 1994, he was discharged with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, due to unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 2 years and 1 month of creditable active service.

8.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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

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 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 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 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 undistinguished service and his repeated offenses.  His service simply did not rise to the level of a fully honorable 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)                                         AR20110014608



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110014608



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1