IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    27 March 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110019570 


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, in effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states the type of discharge he received is too harsh.

3.  The applicant defers to counsel with regards to his supporting evidence.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests to be appropriately informed of all actions taken in the applicant's case.

2.  Counsel makes no additional statements.

3.  Counsel provides:

* The American Legion letter, dated 23 September 2011
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 30 March 1987
* Two Excellence Award Certificates from the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES)
* U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command Certificate of Appreciation
* Exceptional Service Award from AAFES
* 
State of South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy Certificate of Completion of the Correctional Officer Course
* Army Review Boards Agency letter, dated 28 April 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.  He enlisted in the Army on 28 November 1984.  He completed his training as a chapel activities specialist.

3.  The applicant was counseled on six separate occasions between 10 September 1986 and 12 January 1987 for the following offenses:

* missing physical training
* missing formation
* failure to repair
* poor typing skills
* failing his driver test twice
* appearance
* failure to meet duty requirements

4.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three separate occasions between 25 September 1986 and 26 February 1987 for:

* absence without authority
* absence from his place of duty
* dereliction of duty
* failure to go to his appointed place of duty
* fraternizing with a female trainee
* communicating to a female trainee certain language which attempted to establish a personal relationship

5.  On 3 March 1987, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, due to unsatisfactory performance.  His commander cited dishonored checks, failure to repair, fraternization, and poor work performance as a basis for his recommendation.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification on 6 March1987.  After consulting with counsel, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

6.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 10 March 1987 and recommended the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 30 March 1987, the applicant was discharged, under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, due to unsatisfactory performance.  He completed 2 years, 4 months, and 3 days of net active service this period.  He received a General Discharge Certificate.

7.  A review of his records does not show he ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

8.  The applicant submits Excellence Award Certificates and an Exceptional Service Award Certificate showing his outstanding performance between 22 February 1989 and 18 June 1991.  He submits a U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command Certificate of Appreciation for outstanding professional cooperation and support provided to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command.  He also submits a State of South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy Certificate for successful completion of Correctional Officer Training Courses.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation 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
* the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely

10.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a states 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 contentions have been noted.  His supporting evidence has been considered.

2.  His records show he was counseled on at least six occasions and he accepted NJP on three occasions for unsatisfactory performance.  In accordance with the applicable regulation, an individual will be separated for unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier.  An honorable or a general discharge is normally considered appropriate.

3.  The applicant received a general discharge based on his overall record of service.  He has not shown that the type of discharge he received is too harsh.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s 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)                                         AR20110019570





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110019570



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1