IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  23 February 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110016455 


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 an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states:

* the record is unjust because he was put out of the service for failing the military occupational specialty (MOS) test
* another reason for his dismissal was his letters of indebtedness
* he had a new company commander who did not know him
* the new company commander put him out because of the previous company commander's decision
* he was told he was borrowing large sums of money, but this was not true or ever proven
* he was never called in for counseling
* he is in need of treatment for his neck, knees, and back by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
* these conditions are service related and he believes he should be granted service connection

3.  The applicant provides:

* a letter of recommendation to remain on active duty, dated 27 June 1986
* an undated statement from a sergeant first class
* a character reference letter, dated 25 July 2011

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 (RA) on 7 June 1971 and he was honorably discharged on 31 May 1973.  He again enlisted in the RA on 11 July 1973 for a period of 3 years.  He completed training and was awarded MOS 31M (multichannel communications systems operator).  On 14 April 1976, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 15 April 1976 for a period of 6 years.  On 26 April 1984, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 27 April 1984 for a period of 6 years in the rank of staff sergeant.

3.  On 11 February 1986, a Department of the Army (DA) bar to reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program was imposed against the applicant.  On 6 April 1987, his appeal of the DA-imposed bar to reenlistment was denied.

4.  On 8 July 1986, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for behaving with disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, using disrespectful language toward a noncommissioned officer, and failing to obey a lawful order.

5.  Between October 1986 and February 1987, he was counseled on four occasions for indebtedness and dishonored checks.

6.  On 24 April 1987, he received a letter of reprimand for using a subordinate Soldier to cash his personal check when his identification card was a temporary issue and his check cashing privileges had been suspended.

7.  On 4 May 1987, the applicant was notified of his pending separation for misconduct (patterns of misconduct) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b.  The unit commander cited:

* the applicant's acts or patterns of misconduct
* the applicant's bad checks
* the applicant's Article 15

8.  On 14 May 1987, the applicant consulted with counsel, waived his rights, including his right to a board, and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a discharge under conditions other than honorable were issued.  He also elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.

9.  On 9 July 1987, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of discharge under other than honorable conditions.

10.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 27 July 1987 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct (patterns of misconduct) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b.  He completed a total of 16 years and 12 days of creditable active service.

11.  In support of his claim, he provided:

	a.  a letter of recommendation to remain on active duty, dated 27 June 1986, from his garrison commander;

	b.  an undated letter from a sergeant first class who claims the applicant worked for him in Germany during the period 1980 to 1982 and attests the applicant's job performance was outstanding and excellent; and

	c.  a character reference letter from his pastor during the period 1993 to 2002, dated 25 July 2011, who attests the applicant is a supportive and dedicated member of the church and a committed husband and father.  The applicant always exemplified the qualities of honor, loyalty, and dedication.

12.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty.  Chapter 14, in effect at the time, established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, and abuse of illegal drugs.  The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.  However, the separation authority could direct a general discharge if such were merited by the member's overall record.

14.  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.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends he was discharged for failing the MOS test.  However, the evidence shows he was discharged for misconduct (patterns of misconduct).

2.  He contends he never received counseling for his indebtedness.  However, the evidence shows he was counseling on four separate occasions for indebtedness and dishonored checks.

3.  The letters submitted on behalf of the applicant fail to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

4.  He also contends he is in need of treatment by the VA.  However, a discharge is not changed for the sole purpose of obtaining VA benefits.

5.  The applicant's record of service during his last enlistment included adverse counseling statements, a bar to reenlistment, a letter of reprimand, and one NJP.  He was a staff sergeant.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge or a general discharge.

6.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he failed to do so.

7.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons were therefore appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  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 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)                                         AR20110016455



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110016455



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1