IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  6 September 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120003825 


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:

* The 6-month request was never submitted after his discharge from active duty in 1995
* He is in good standing as a Soldier
* He has received two Army Good Conduct Medals

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the periods ending 29 September 1995 and 23 November 2007
* Certificates of achievement, training, appreciation, and accomplishment
* Orders for the Army Achievement Medal
* Diploma for the Warrior Leader Course

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 February 1990 for 3 years and 15 weeks.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13E (cannon crewmember).  He was honorably discharged on 21 October 1992 for immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 22 October 1992 for a period of 3 years.

2.  On 12 September 1995, he received a letter of admonition for being financially irresponsible.

3.  On 13 September 1995, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for fraud and abuse of government funds through improper use of a government credit card (4 specifications).   

4.  He was counseled for indebtedness and writing bad checks.

5.  On 19 September 1995, he was notified of his pending separation for misconduct (patterns of misconduct) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-12b.  The unit commander cited the applicant's recurring personal indebtedness, fraud, and abuse of government funds through improper use of a government credit card.

6.  On 19 September 1995, he consulted with counsel, waived his rights, and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.  

7.  On 22 September 1995, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

8.  On 29 September 1995, he was discharged under honorable conditions (general discharge) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct (patterns of misconduct).  He completed a total of 5 years, 7 months, and 3 days of creditable active service.

9.  He enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) in October 1998 and has remained in the ARNG through continuous reenlistments.  He was ordered to active duty on 27 July 2006 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  He served in Iraq from 21 October 2006 to 18 October 2007 and he was released from active duty on 23 November 2007.  His DD Form 214 for the period ending 
23 November 2007 shows, among other awards, the Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award).  He is currently serving in the ARNG in the rank of specialist. 

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

11.  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.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense (military or civilian offense), and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  

12.  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.

13.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends the 6-month request was never submitted after his discharge from active duty in 1995 (it appears he means an automatic discharge upgrade).  However, a discharge upgrade is not automatic.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation action was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns; however, he failed to do so.

3.  Although an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 14, it appears the separation authority considered the applicant's total service when he directed the issuance of a general discharge.

4.  His subsequent service in the Army National Guard is commendable.  However, his record of service during his last enlistment in 1995 included one NJP and adverse counseling statements for financial problems.  As a result, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant a fully 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)                                         AR20120003825



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120003825



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1