IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 22 May 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110021962
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 under honorable conditions
2. The applicant states he had already paid for his error by spending 6 months in the stockade, but his superiors discharged him without giving him a chance at rehabilitation. He did not know the implications of the discharge until recently.
3. The applicant provides in support of his application:
* service record documents that he identifies as "Case Summary" this consists of one page bearing that title
* various pages relating trial and conviction by a special court-martial
* various pages from his separation package
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 applicants 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 applicants 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 and entered active duty on 23 August 1983. He completed training as an infantryman and progressed normally. He was awarded an Army Achievement Medal in March 1985.
3. He was transferred to Korea in June 1985, advanced to specialist four (pay grade E-4) in August 1985 and reenlisted for 5 years in March 1986.
4. Following an investigation, the applicant was charged with black marketeering by purchasing and being unable to properly account for controlled (duty free) items, specifically, 11 video tape recorders worth in excess of $2700.
5. On 13 January 1987 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial authorized to impose a bad conduct discharge. He pled guilty to 11 instances of two specifications each of violation of a lawful general regulation. The approved sentence included reduction to pay grade E-2, forfeiture of $250 per month for 4 months and confinement for 6 months. In accordance with a pretrial agreement, confinement in excess of 2 months was suspended for 6 months.
6. On 9 March 1987 the company commander recommended separation with a general discharge for commission of a serious offense.
7. The applicant acknowledged the notification and consulted with counsel who advised him of his rights. The applicant indicated that he understood that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life as a result of a less than fully honorable discharge and that he might be ineligible for some veterans' benefits under Federal and state laws.
8. The chain of command recommended approval of the recommendation. The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed a general discharge.
9. On 22 April 1987 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12C. He had 3 years 5 months and 9 days of creditable active duty service and 81 days of lost time.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include commission of a serious offense. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier's overall record (chap 3, sec III). At that time, subparagraph 12C provided that when the sole basis for separation was a serious offense which resulted in a conviction by a competent court-martial that did not impose-a punitive discharge, the soldier's service could not be characterized under other than honorable conditions unless approved by Headquarters Department of the Army (TAPC-PDT-SS).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant states he had already paid for his error by spending 6 months in the stockade, but his superiors discharged him without giving him a chance at rehabilitation. He did not know the implications of the discharge until recently.
2. The applicant was not discharged for making a mistake he was discharged for committing a serious offense (11 times). He did not serve 6 months in jail he only served 91 days.
3. Considering that he still minimizes his offenses and exaggerates his punishment, the decision to discharge him because rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed appears quite reasonable.
4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
5. There is insufficient documentation or rationale submitted by the applicant or in the record to support the requested relief.
6. In view of the foregoing there is no basis for granting the 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) AR20110021962
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110021962
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008981
The applicant was accordingly discharged on 2 January 1990 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the offence for which he was discharged and is appropriate for the applicant's overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018634
Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 10 December 1985, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. On 3 February 1987, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12c, for misconduct, commission of a serious offense, based on his use of illegal drugs. On 13 May 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006773C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier's overall record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017777
On 6 November 1987, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense - abuse of illegal drugs with issuance of a general discharge. On 21 December 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, by reason...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017490
On 31 January 1985, the applicant's unit commander initiated action barring him from reenlistment. However, his records contained a copy of his DD Form 214 which shows that he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, on 5 June 1987 for misconduct, commission of a serious offense. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000040
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 May 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070000040 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Member Mr. James R. Hastie Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 18 March 1987, the applicants commander recommended that he be separated from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019153
The applicant requests that his general discharge be further upgraded to an honorable discharge and restoration of his pay grade of E-2. On 26 March 1987, the appropriate separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for abuse of illegal drugs and directed he be issued an under other than honorable discharge. The applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023598
On 25 March 1986, the applicant's commander notified the applicant he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct based on commission of a serious offense. On 21 April 1986, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, based on commission of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017289
On 26 March 1991, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c of AR 635-200 for misconduct with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Contrary to the applicant's contention that he was discharged because he was falsely charged with living with the wife of his sergeant, the evidence of record shows that the applicant amassed several instances of NJP throughout his military service for various offenses ranging from minor...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012939
On 3 August 1987, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (commission of a serious offense). On 10 July 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an honorable discharge. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general, under honorable conditions or an...