IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  26 July 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120002285 


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, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) by upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).  

2.  The applicant states he would like an upgrade of his discharge.  He states he was treated fairly and there was no error.  He states he has been offered a job in Kuwait that involves close contact with military forces and would like to show his employer an HD.  He further states he is not a bad person.  

3.  The applicant provides a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) and a self-authored letter in support of his request.  

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's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 
23 April 1991, and was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).

3.  The record confirms the applicant was advanced to the rank of specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4) on 1 March 1993, and this is the highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty.  His record documents no valor or significant achievement.

4.  The applicant's disciplinary record includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on 15 March 1995, for being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer, and formal counseling for indebtedness by members of his chain of command.

5.  On 15 July 1996, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, by reason of misconduct (acts or patterns of misconduct).  The unit commander cited the applicant's extensive counseling for indebtedness as the basis for taking the action.  The unit commander informed the applicant he was recommending he receive a GD.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 15 July 1996.  

6.  On 17 July 1996, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation action for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and directed the applicant receive a GD.  On 30 July 1996, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

7.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant shows the applicant held the rank of SPC/E-4 on the date of discharge and that he completed a total of 5 years,
3 months, and 8 days of creditable active military service.  

8.  There is no evidence indicating the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel from the Army.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave.
10.  Paragraph 14-3 of Army Regulation 635-200 contains guidance on characterization of service for members separated under chapter 14.  It states that a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  The separation authority may direct a GD if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record.  It further states a characterization of honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be inappropriate.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request to upgrade his GD to an HD based on his desire to present an HD to future employers and to show he is not a bad person has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support his claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of NJP and extensive indebtedness.

3.  The applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  By regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct.  It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge.  However, his misconduct clearly diminished his overall record of service below that meriting a fully HD.  Therefore, absent evidence of error or injustice in the discharge process, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support an upgrade of his 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)                                         AR20120002285



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120002285



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1