IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  26 July 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120001456 


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 to a fully honorable discharge.  He also requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show award of the Overseas Service Ribbon (OSR), Presidential Unit Citation (PUC), and the Army Superior Unit Award (ASUA).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge was based on false allegations made against him.  He also states he was awarded the OSR, PUC, and the ASUA while stationed with the 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment in Germany from 1988 to 1994.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his application.

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.  After serving 3 years, 11 months, and 14 days of prior enlisted Regular Army (RA) service from April 1984 and April 1988, the applicant enlisted in the RA on
13 September 1988 for training as a medical specialist.  He completed his basic training at Fort Bliss, TX and his advance individual training at Fort Sam Houston, TX before being transferred to Germany on 18 March 1989.  He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 3d Squadron, 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment.

3.  The applicant deployed to Southwest Asia (SWA) with his unit in support of Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm from 8 December 1990 to 25 April 1991. He returned to his duty station in Germany and remained there until 3 March 1992 when he departed Germany en route to his next assignment at Fort Irwin, CA.

4.  He was again transferred for duty to Germany on 14 December 1994 where he served until 27 July 1995 when he was reassigned to Fort Sam Houston.  On 10 January 2000, he was reassigned to Fort Leonard Wood, MO.

5.  On 17 January 2002 the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct).  He cited as the basis for his recommendation multiple incidents of writing bad checks, receiving nonjudicial punishment for wrongful cohabitation, making false official statements, committing adultery and larceny of government funds.

6.  On 16 April 2002 the commander notified the applicant that action had been initiated to effect separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for a pattern of misconduct.  He cited additional incidents of writing bad checks, failure to pay his debts, the applicant being arrested by civil authorities for writing bad checks, failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions regarding the writing of bad checks and paying his debts, multiple failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test, being overweight, inefficiency and failure to go to his place of duty on multiple occasions, having unauthorized persons in his on-post quarters, being titled with adultery and sodomy, and failure to provide support to his dependents.

7.  On 3 May 2002, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for a conditional waiver in which he agreed to waive consideration of his case by an administrative separation board in return for a characterization of no less than under honorable conditions (general discharge). He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  The appropriate authority approved the request for a conditional waiver on 16 May 2002 and directed that he be discharged under honorable conditions.

9.  Accordingly, on 11 June 2002, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he completed 13 years, 8 months, and 12 days of net active service this period for a total of 17 years,7 months, and 26 days of creditable active service.  It further shows no entry for the OSR, PUC, or the ASUA.

10.  On 30 December 2011, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his general under honorable conditions discharge to a fully honorable discharge.  On 4 June 2012, the ADRB determined that under the circumstances his discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny his request.

11.  A search of the available records failed to show any evidence indicating that the applicant’s unit was awarded the PUC or the ASUA during the period the applicant served with the unit.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct.  Specific categories included minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, and commission of a serious offense, which includes drug offenses.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  

13.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

14.  Army Regulation 670-1 (Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia) states unit awards are authorized for permanent wear by an individual who was assigned and present for duty with the unit at any time during the period cited or who was attached to and present for duty with the unit for at least 30 consecutive days of the period cited.  An individual who was not present with a unit during the period cited for permanent wear of a unit award may be authorized temporary wear only for the duration of assignment to the unit.

15.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the OSR is awarded for successful completion of overseas tours.  Numerals are used to denote the second and subsequent awards of the OSR.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the characterization and the narrative reason for separation were appropriate for the circumstances of his case.
  
3.   The applicant’s contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the nature and multitude of his offenses.  The applicant’s overall service simply does not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge.

4.  Records show the applicant completed one overseas tour in Germany.  Therefore, he is entitled to the OSR and correction of his DD Form 214 to show this award.

5.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant failed to show any evidence that his unit was awarded the PUC or the ASUA during his period of assignment.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting this portion of his request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____x___  ____x___  ____x___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding to his DD Form 214 for the period ending 11 June 2002 the Overseas Service Ribbon.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading his discharge and adding the Presidential Unit Citation or the Army Superior Unit Award to his      DD Form 214.



      ___________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)                                         AR20120001456



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120001456



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1