IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  14 August 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120002669 


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 general discharge to an honorable discharge.  He also requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show he served in the primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) of 12E (Atomic Demolition Munitions Specialist).

2.  He states his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 34 months of service with no other adverse action.  He further states he was trained in MOS 12E and never held the MOS of 76V (Materiel Storage and Handling Specialist).

3.  He provides:

* DD Form 214
* Summary of Service
* DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document)
* Section VII (Current and Previous Assignments) of DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) 

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.  His military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 March 1978.  He completed training and was awarded the MOS of 12B (Combat Engineer), effective 22 June 1978.

3.  On 12 December 1980 he reenlisted for a period of 6 years.  The highest rank/grade he held was specialist four/E-4.

4.  Orders 246-2 published by Headquarters, U.S. Army Engineer Center and Fort Belvoir, dated 19 December 1980, show he was awarded the PMOS of 12E and the secondary MOS of 12B effective 17 December 1980.

5.  His records contain numerous documents dated from 1 December 1980 until the approximate time of his discharge indicating indebtedness, failure to pay just debts, and counseling statements regarding his failure to pay his debts.  One such statement provided by a former platoon sergeant of the applicant indicated the applicant's first wife had run up a lot of bills that he had to pay.  The applicant had reenlisted a few months prior and received a $12,000.00 bonus but it wasn't enough to pay all the bills.  The platoon sergeant asked the applicant to bring all the bills he owed and a list of his living expenses.  The applicant was trying to pay for two cars, one motorcycle, and a truck.  The platoon sergeant stated he had seen paperwork indicating the applicant was about $23,000.00 in debt.

6.  On 8 June 1981, his commander advised him of his intention to disqualify him from the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) due to very poor financial management and not being honest with his fellow Soldiers on business and financial matters.  On the same date he acknowledged the commander’s action to disqualify him from the PRP and indicated in writing the MOS's in which he preferred to be reclassified.

7.  Orders 224-80 published by Headquarters, 13th Support Command (Corps), dated 6 November 1981, withdrew the PMOS of 12E and awarded him the PMOS of 76V effective 2 November 1981.

8.  On 15 April 1982, he was counseled due to lying about his whereabouts.

9.  His records also show he was counseled for not meeting the standards of Army regulations in the areas of personal hygiene, appearance, managing his personal affairs, and for threatening to be absent without leave (AWOL).

10.  On 13 July 1982, he was notified by his commander of his intention to recommend the applicant's discharge for an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.  He was advised of his rights.

11.  On 17 August 1982, the appropriate authority approved his separation.

12.  His complete discharge packet is not available.  However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 2 September 1982 with an under honorable conditions character of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-33b(3), by reason of misconduct – an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.  He completed 4 years, 5 months, and 12 days of active military service.

13.  His DA Form 2-1 shows he held the following PMOS's for the periods and length of time shown below:

* 12B from 22 June 1978 to 16 December 1980 (2 years and 6 months)
* 12E from 17 December 1980 to 1 November 1981 (10 months)
* 76V from 2 November 1981 to 2 September 1982 (10 months)

14.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  The version in effect at the time stated members were subject to separation under the provisions of paragraph 14-33b(3) for a pattern of misconduct consisting of an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.  Action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority could direct a general discharge if such were merited by the Soldier's overall record.

16.  An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization was clearly inappropriate.

17.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, stated to enter the MOS codes, titles, years, and months for enlisted personnel.

18.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR.  The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  His records show he was counseled due to his failure to pay his just debts.  He was disqualified from the PRP due to very poor financial management and not being honest with his fellow Soldiers on business and financial matters.  This required his reclassification to a different MOS.

2.  Based on the applicant's record of misconduct his service was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption of administrative regularity must be applied.  As such, even though the applicant's records do not contain his complete discharge packet, it is presumed that his discharge process was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

4.  Based on the evidence of record it would be appropriate to amend item 11 of his DD Form 214 to show:

* 12B, Combat Engineer, 2 years and 6 months
* 12E, Atomic Demolition Munitions Specialist, 10 months
* 76V, Materiel Storage and Handling Specialist, 10 months

5.  In view of the foregoing, he is entitled to have his records corrected as shown below.



BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X____  __X____  __X_____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is 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 amending his DD Form 214 to show in item11:

* 12B, Combat Engineer, 2 years and 6 months
* 12E, Atomic Demolition Munitions Specialist, 10 months
* 76V, Materiel Storage and Handling Specialist, 10 months

2.  The Board further determined 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 upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge.



      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20120002669



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120002669



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1