BOARD DATE:	  6 September 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120005362 


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 fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states he understands his actions with regard to alcoholic beverage consumption were viewed negatively by his superiors and others he was around; however, he was just a kid and now realizes the implications it had on his life.  He states he is trying to obtain an online degree in business administration and needs an honorable discharge to receive assistance with his tuition.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 was born on 14 August 1964.  He enlisted in the Regular Army under the airborne/infantry/ranger training option for a period of 3 years on 23 January 1984 at nearly 20 years of age.  He completed training at Fort Benning, Georgia, and was transferred to Fort Stewart, Georgia, on 26 May 1984 for assignment to a ranger battalion.

3.  On 24 July 1984, he was transferred to Germany for assignment to an infantry company in Illesheim, Germany.

4.  On 27 August 1985, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being drunk on duty on 3 July 1985, being drunk and disorderly on 24 August 1985, disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer on 24 August 1985, and failing to go to his place of duty on 26 August 1985.

5.  On 29 October 1985, the applicant's commander notified him that he was recommending his disqualification for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) due to his pattern of unsatisfactory performance and recalcitrance towards sincere rehabilitation.  The applicant acknowledged the notification and declined the opportunity to submit a statement in his own behalf.

6.  His commander also notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 13, citing the same reasons as disqualification for the AGCM and failure to respond to repeated counseling sessions.

7.  After being afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  Accordingly, he was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey, where he was discharged under honorable conditions on 21 November 1985 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He completed 1 year, 9 months, and 29 days of active service.

10.  There is no evidence in the available records to show he 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, chapter 13, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant's rights. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were therefore appropriate under the circumstances.

2.  The applicant's contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating considering his undistinguished record of service during such a short period of time and lack of mitigating circumstances.  Additionally, discharges are not upgraded simply for the purpose of qualifying individuals for benefits.

3.  Accordingly, his service simply did not rise to the level of 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 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)                                         AR20120005362



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120005362



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1