IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  9 February 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110016061 


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, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.  He also requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show the entry "YES" in item 16 (High School Graduate or Equivalent) and to reflect two awards of the Army Achievement Medal (AAM), three certificates of achievement, and that he completed the Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) decontamination training and the Combat Medic training.

2.  The applicant states he was stationed in Germany when he was asked if he wanted out of the Army and he agreed.  He thought it was a legitimate option because their post was being turned into a cavalry base and he was never told that agreeing to the discharge would lead to a general discharge.  He contends that he had no disciplinary issues during his two and a half years on active duty and that he received three certificates of achievement and two AAMs.

3.  The applicant provides three certificates of achievement, two AAM certificates, a Certificate of High School Equivalence, and an Official Report of Test Results (General Educational Development (GED)).

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 3 October 1986 and upon completion of initial entry training he was awarded military occupational specialty 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman).

3.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment on 9 June 1987 for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

4.  His Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains numerous counseling forms that show he was counseled on several occasions for a number of infractions that include failure to follow instructions, poor personal appearance, failure to be at his appointed place of duty, indebtedness, dishonored checks, and poor performance and attitude.

5.  On 6 February 1989, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being considered for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge.  The commander cited as the reason for the proposed separation the fact that the applicant's was counseled on numerous occasions for his poor military appearance, constantly writing bad checks, and for not being at his appointed place of duty several times.  He was also advised of the effects of such a separation, the rights available to him, which included his right to consult with legal counsel, and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights.

6.  He acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation action on 6 February 1989.  He declined the opportunity to consult with counsel, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  On 8 February 1989, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  Accordingly, he was discharged on 14 March 1989 with his service characterized as general, under honorable conditions.  He completed 2 years, 5 months, and 12 days of active service.

8.  His DD Form 214 does not show the AAM in item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized).  Item 14 (Military Education) is blank and item 16 shows the entry "NO."

9.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

10.  He provided two AAM Certificates that show he was awarded the AAM on 
2 February 1988 and on 13 June 1988.  However, a review of his OMPF failed to reveal any orders for the AAM.  Additionally, the AAM is not listed in item 9 (Awards, Decorations, and Campaigns) of his DA For 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record).  His OMPF review also failed to reveal any documentation substantiating his claim that he completed an NBC decontamination course or a combat medic course.

11.  He also provided a Certificate of High School Equivalence, and an Official Report of Test Results (GED) that show he passed his GED test and was issued a Certificate of High School Equivalence on 8 October 1987.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander's judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

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.

14.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the AAM is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States, who while serving in a noncombat area on or after 1 August 1981, distinguished themselves by meritorious service or achievement.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

15.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 gives the order of precedence for awards and decorations.  Only decorations, medals, and ribbons are listed.  Certificates of achievement, letters of appreciation, and similar documents are not listed.

16.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214 and states:

	a.  The DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty.

	b.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of relief from active duty, retirement, or discharge.

	c.  In item 13, list awards and decorations for all periods of service in the priority sequence specified in Army Regulation 600-8-22.  

	d.  In item 14, list in–service training courses; title, number of weeks year successfully completed during this period of service; e.g., medical, dental, electronics, supply, administration, personnel, or heavy equipment operations.  This information is to assist the member after separation in job placement and counseling; therefore, training courses for combat skills will not be listed.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request and contentions have carefully considered.  

2.  His contention that he was never told that agreeing to the discharge would lead to a general discharge is not supported by the available evidence.  He was informed by his commander that he was being considered for separation with a general discharge and he acknowledged receipt of the notification on 6 February 1989.

3.  The evidence of record confirms his separation processing was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  He was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and to provide a statement in his own behalf.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

4.  His disciplinary history includes nonjudicial punishment and an extensive negative counseling record.  This record of indiscipline clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  As a result, his discharge accurately reflects the overall quality of his service and there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support upgrading his discharge now.

5.  There are no orders or any other evidence in his OMPF showing he was awarded the AAM.  In the absence of orders, the AAM Certificates provided are insufficient evidence to support correcting his DD Form 214 to show these awards.

6.  There is also no evidence in his OMPF showing he completed an NBC decontamination course or a combat medic course.  Therefore, there is no basis to correct his DD Form 214 to show additional military education.

7.  There are no provisions in pertinent Army regulations authorizing the recording of certificates of achievement in a DD Form 214.  Therefore, this portion of his request should also be denied.

8.  Evidence confirms he was issued a Certificate of High School Equivalence on 8 October 1987.  Therefore, item 16 of his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show the entry "YES."

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____X____  ___X_____  ___X_____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by correcting his DD Form 214 to show the entry "YES" in item 16. 

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading his discharge to honorable and to further correcting his DD Form 214 by adding two awards of the AAM, additional military education, and certificates of achievement.




      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20110016061



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110016061



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1