IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 24 May 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110023975
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 his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states:
a. he enlisted in the Army when he was 16 years old. He was a good Solider and was promoted to private first class. When he was at his first duty station his mother gave him very disturbing news that his sister attempted suicide and abandoned her daughter. His sister called him and told him she had to see him or she was going to take her own life. His request for 5 days of leave was denied.
b. His platoon sergeant advised him that he could get written up for disciplinary problems and he could get out of the Army and reenlist at a later date. He was very young and followed this bad advice so he could get home to be with his sister. He was very young and easily influenced. He was not aware of the impact the discharge would have on his military career and civilian life. He blames himself for his actions, but he was not mature enough at the time to make the right decision.
c. It has been over 20-years and the discharge has been a source of shame. He performed very well in his short time in the military. He was a squad leader and was promoted twice in 8 months. These accomplishments are not indicative of an unsatisfactory performer. Since his discharge he has functioned with pride in civilian life achieving a college degree and actively serving in law enforcement in his community. He was a teenager who accepted poor advice. He did serve honorably during his enlistment and requests an upgrade of his discharge
3. The applicant did not provide any additional documentation.
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 at the age of 17 in the Regular Army on 9 October 1987. He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).
3. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows in:
a. item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) he was appointed to private first class (PFC)/E-3 effective 1 October 1988; and
b. item 38 (Record of Assignments) he was assigned to Company A,
1st Battalion, 37th Infantry, Fort Campbell, KY, effective 2 February 1988.
4. On 14 December 1988, the applicant was informed that the company commander was initiating elimination processing because he had been repeatedly counseled for writing bad checks, failure to report for duty, improper room appearance, job performance and failure to follow proper sick call procedure. All attempts to make him a useful Solider had failed.
5. The company commander recommended separation with a general discharge.
6. The applicant consulted with legal counsel who advised him of his rights and also of the disadvantages of a less-than-fully-honorable discharge, including that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
7. The appropriate authority approved the separation and directed that a general discharge be issued. On 4 January 1989, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions. He completed 1 year, 2 months, and 26 days of creditable service.
8. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.
9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
a. 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.
b. Chapter 13 sets forth the policy and procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provides that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The Board notes that the applicant was
18 years old when separated, had satisfactory completed training and promoted to PFC. His satisfactory performance demonstrates his capacity to serve and shows that he was neither too young nor immature.
2. The applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, due to unsatisfactory performance was in compliance with all requirements of law and applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. In addition, the type of discharge directed and the narrative reason therefore were appropriate and equitable
3. At the time of his separation, his lawyer advised him that the general discharge might hamper his employment; yet, he did not even offer a statement in his own behalf.
4. 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) AR20110002275
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110023975
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018405
Also incorporated herein are the military records which were summarized in the original consideration of his request to upgrade his discharge by the ABCMR in Docket Number AC93-11075, on 26 April 1995, wherein the Board carefully considered the applicant's entire service record as well as the evidence he submitted. With regard to his new issues, the Board determined that the applicant's records should be corrected to show his overseas service in Germany, but not to change the reason for his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002412
He had taken no actions in correcting his shortcomings despite the attempts from fellow officers to give him guidance and advice. In December 1969, the applicant voluntarily tendered his resignation from the Army for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-120 (Personnel Separations Officer Resignations and Discharges), chapter 5. The evidence of record shows the applicant received a discharge OER wherein his rating officials commented that the applicant had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002911
The applicant states his performance of duty was not unsatisfactory. On 8 June 1993, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. Based on his record of NJPs, civilian arrests, and numerous counselings for unsatisfactory performance, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the acceptable standards for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019588
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. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge on 30 March 1990 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant's record of service included two nonjudicial...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011437
On 3 February 1989, the applicant's unit commander initiated action to separate him from active duty for entry-level performance and conduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 11-3. He was discharged on 13 February 1989 in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a, with uncharacterized service. There is no evidence that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change to his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010595
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. The applicant also acknowledged he understood that if his request for discharge was accepted, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006339
On 14 May 1990, his commander notified him he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge under honorable conditions. The commander advised the applicant of his right to: * be represented by counsel * submit statements in his own behalf * review documents to be presented to the separation authority * waive any of these rights *...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011309
He knows that in similar circumstances, when given an Article 15 an individual received an honorable discharge. However, his records contain a properly-constituted DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) that shows he was discharged on 1 September 1976 under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015759
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 May 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140015759 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. He never saw the young lady again, but a couple of months after the incident he was picked up and charged with cocaine distribution, court-martialed, sentenced to 90 days confinement, and a BCD. c. his friends describe him as a very good friend and an intelligent, dedicated, responsible family man.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018828
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable and amendment of his narrative reason for separation to hardship. The applicant contends he enlisted at age 18 and he had never been away from home. He was 18 years old when he enlisted and successfully completed training.