BOARD DATE:	  5 April 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110020140 


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 discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that his discharge should be upgraded because he developed a mood disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) while in the service.

3.  The applicant provides a consult request from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

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 22 October 1980 for a period of 3 years and training as a field artillery fire finder operator.  He completed one-station unit training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and was transferred to Germany where he served from 5 March 1981 to 30 September 1982 when he was transferred to Fort Hood, Texas.  

3.  On 21 July 1983, he reenlisted for a period of 4 years and a selective reenlistment bonus.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 7 January 1984.

4.  On 10 April 1984, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.

5.  On 13 July 1984, NJP was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer.

6.  On 23 July 1984, NJP was imposed against him for consuming alcoholic beverages while on duty.

7.  Although not fully explained in the available records, the applicant was confined by civil authorities from 23 to 24 July 1984.

8.  On 24 July 1984, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s disciplinary record and his failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions regarding his poor performance, repeated failure to go to his place of duty, inability to accept responsibility as a noncommissioned officer, failure to set an example, and negligence in the performance of his duties.

9.  After consulting with defense counsel the applicant waived all of his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

10.  On 2 August 1984, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

11.  Accordingly, on 10 August 1984, he was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 3 years, 9 months, and 19 days of active service.

12.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

13.  The VA consult request provided by the applicant states, in part, that, while serving in Germany, his mother attempted suicide by overdoes.  It states that in 1984 while at Fort Hood, he was involved in a car accident wherein he was ejected from the car and suffered a head injury.  It also states he used hashish while stationed in Germany.  

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

15.  Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 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 therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  A review of the available records failed to show any evidence of the applicant being diagnosed with any disorders while on active duty.

4.  The applicant’s contentions and supporting documents have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his overall record of service.  His service simply does not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge.

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)                                         AR20110020140



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110020140



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1