BOARD DATE:	  13 September 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120004915 


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:

	a.  an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable;

	b.  correction of item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to add the Army Achievement Medal (AAM) and replace the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) with the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar 
(M-16); and

	c.  correction of item 14 (Military Education) of his DD Form 214 to show he completed advanced individual training (AIT) and the Basic Skills Education Program (BSEP).

2.  The applicant makes the following statements:

	a.  He qualified as Expert with the M-16 rifle.

	b.  He was awarded the AAM.

	c.  His AIT and 5-week BSEP should be shown in item 14 of his DD Form 214.

	d.  He was told his discharge would be upgraded to honorable after 2 years.

	e.  His discharge is inequitable because:

* he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for incidents he wasn't aware of
* false statements were made
* the battery first sergeant denied his award of the AAM
* he submitted statements in his own behalf, but they were not acknowledged
* he was given a choice to remain in the military or be discharged and he chose to be discharged
* he did not have any courts-martial
* he did not write two bad checks in 1988
* he received NJP for being late, but he called his unit to let them know he overslept
* he went on leave in 1987, but he returned late because he had to take the bus
* his medical records show he was being evaluated for discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 instead of chapter 13
* his DD Form 214 does not show award of the AAM

 	f.  His DD Form 214 shows he qualified as Marksman with the M-16 rifle and Expert with the hand grenade, but these were his earlier qualifications.  He later qualified as Expert with both the M-16 rifle and hand grenade.

	g.  Item 14 of his DD Form 214 shows "NOTHING FOLLOWS" which is false.  He completed the BSEP; Special Weapons Course; Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Team training; Decontamination Team training; and Business Management training.

	h.  Since his discharge he has taken business classes, he has been employed as a security officer, and he is a member of Piney Grove Baptist Church.

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States)
* memorandum, Battery C, 2d Battalion, 37th Field Artillery, undated, subject:  Discharge Under the Provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 13, for Unsatisfactory Performance, Regarding:  (Applicant)
* 1st endorsement, 2d Battalion, 37th Field Artillery, dated 14 March 1988, subject:  Elimination in Accordance With Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Performance, Regarding:  (Applicant)
* DD Form 214

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 Amy on 9 May 1986 for a period of 3 years.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (cannon crewman).

3.  On 31 March 1987, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 24 March 1987 to 25 March 1987.

4.  On 24 June 1987, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against the applicant for his NJP, failures to repair, and dishonored checks.

5.  On 1 February 1988, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

6.  On 19 February 1988, he underwent a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.  His Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History) and Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) show the purpose of the examination was "Chapter 14."

7.  Between April 1987 and 23 February 1988, he was counseled for:

* bad checks
* failures to repair
* below average personal appearance
* missing from place of duty
* bunk display not properly maintained
* unsatisfactory room, bunk display not complete, and wet laundry bag on display
* separation action

8.  His Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 February 1988, shows he was found psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command.  This form shows he was being considered for discharge under the provisions of chapter 13.

9.  On 10 March 1988, he was notified of his pending separation for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.  The reasons for the proposed action were that the applicant:

* had been counseled on a number of occasions formally and informally about his unsatisfactory performance
* received NJP on two occasions
* was barred from reenlistment and the bar was removed to give him a chance to perform more substantially
* had written several dishonored checks

10.  He consulted with counsel and acknowledged notification of his pending separation.  He acknowledged that he understood he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued.  He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf; however, his statement is not available for review.

11.  On 14 March 1988, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, and directed the applicant's general discharge.

12.  He was discharged under honorable conditions on 17 March 1988 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He completed 1 year, 10 months, and 9 days of creditable active service.

13.  Item 13 of his DD Form 214 shows he was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon, Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar 
(M-16), and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Hand Grenade Bar.

14.  Item 14 of his DD Form 214 shows the entry "None//NOTHING FOLLOWS."

15.  There are no orders in his available records that show he was awarded the AAM or Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16).

16.  Item 9 (Awards, Decorations, and Campaigns) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he qualified as Marksman with the M-16 rifle on 27 October 1986.  It does not show the AAM as an authorized award.

17.  Item 17 (Civilian Education and Military Schools) of his DA Form 2-1 shows he completed the 13-week AIT Field Artillery Crewman (MOS 13B) Course in 1986.  There is no evidence that shows he completed the 5-week BSEP.

18.  There is no indication in the available records that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations.

19.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for the administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at the time, provided for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander's judgment the individual would not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale; the service member would be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation would continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, was unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation would be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

20.  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.

21.  The U.S. Army does not now 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 the character of service or the reason for discharge, or both, was improper or inequitable.

22.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It states for item 14, list formal in-service (full-time attendance) training courses successfully completed during the period of service covered by the DD Form 214.  Include title, length in weeks, and year completed.  This information is to assist the Soldier in job placement and counseling; therefore, do not list training courses for combat skills.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends he was told his discharge would be automatically changed to honorable after 2 years.  However, a discharge upgrade is not automatic.

2.  Good post-service conduct alone is normally not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

3.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons were therefore appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  Since his record of service included adverse counseling statements, a bar to reenlistment, and two NJP's, his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service was insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

5.  He contends he qualified as Expert with the M-16 rifle.  However, there are no orders that show he was awarded the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16).  The evidence shows he qualified as Marksman with this rifle which is properly reflected in item 14 of his DD Form 214.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to amend his marksmanship qualification badge on his DD Form 214.

6.  Although the applicant contends he was awarded the AAM, there are no orders for the AAM in the available records and he provided no orders.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to add this medal to his DD Form 214.

7.  The evidence shows he completed the 13-week AIT Field Artillery Crewman Course in 1986.  However, field artillery crewman is a combat skill and the governing regulation states training courses for combat skills will not be listed on the DD Form 214.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting this portion of his request.

8.  Since there is no evidence that shows he completed the 5-week BSEP and he provided no evidence, there is insufficient evidence to amend item 14 of his DD Form 214 to show this school.
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)                                         AR20120004915



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120004915



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1