IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  5 July 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120000535 


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

2.  The applicant states he is now a successful businessman, a father, and a good citizen in the community.  He has not been in trouble with the law and he even has a concealed gun license. 

3.  The applicant provides: 

* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* Electrical Contractor License
* Driver License
* Concealed Handgun License

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 4 March 1981 and held military occupational specialty 67N (Utility Helicopter Repairer).  The highest rank/grade he attained during his military service was specialist four/E-4.

3.  He served in Hawaii from 14 November 1982 to 11 September 1984.  He was awarded the Good Conduct Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Aircraft Crewman Badge, Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, and Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar. 

4.  On 30 May 1984, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully using marijuana.  His punishment consisted of a reduction, extra duty, and suspended forfeiture of pay.

5.  On 6 June 1984, his immediate commander initiated a Bar to Reenlistment Certificate against him citing his wrongful use of illegal drugs.  The applicant was provided with a copy of this bar but he elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.  The bar was ultimately approved by the approval authority.

6. On 6 August 1984, the suspended forfeiture of pay was vacated after he failed to go to his appointed place of duty.

7.  On 9 August 1984, he again accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for being late to formation. 

8.  His records show during his service he was frequently counseled by several members of his chain of command for various infractions including being late to duty or missing formation.

9.  On 15 August 1984, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) due to unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge.   

10.  On 15 August 1984, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's notification and he subsequently consulted with legal counsel.  He was advised of the bases for the contemplated separation action for unsatisfactory performance, the type of discharge he could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights that were available to him.  He elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.  He further acknowledged he understood he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him and he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.

11.  His immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge under honorable conditions.  

12.  On 22 August 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance with the issuance of a general discharge under honorable conditions.  Accordingly, he was discharged on 13 September 1984.  His DD Form 214 shows he completed 3 years, 6 months, and 10 days of creditable active service. 

13.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board within that board's 15-year statute of limitation.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, 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.  A general or honorable discharge was considered appropriate.

15.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence shows his duty performance was tarnished by two instances of NJP, one of which was for the illegal use of drugs, a bar to reenlistment, and a history of negative counseling.  Accordingly, his chain of command initiated separation action against him.  The evidence further shows his separation processing was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and there is no evidence of procedural errors that would have jeopardized his rights.  His general discharge is commensurate with his overall record of military service. 

2.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an 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)                                         AR20120000535





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120000535



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1