Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005362
Original file (20120005362.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		
		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

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011971C070206

    Original file (20050011971C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his general discharge due to unsatisfactory performance be upgraded to an honorable discharge by reason of physical disability. The documents provided by the applicant show that as of 14 June 2005, the applicant is rated by the VA as being as 80% disabled and for VA purposes is considered 100% totally disabled. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050009914C070206

    Original file (20050009914C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 October 1984, the applicant was transferred to the 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, reporting for duty with the Combat Support Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Infantry Regiment on 5 December 1984, as a Scout Driver. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within the board’s 15 year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013142

    Original file (20140013142 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to at least a general discharge. The available records also show that after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008996

    Original file (20130008996.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 8 February 1985, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. 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. He provides no evidence to show the character of his service is unjust or to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004566

    Original file (20120004566.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. Accordingly, on 23 June 1986, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a General Discharge Certificate. 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012358

    Original file (20090012358.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's record contains a DA Form 4856, dated 14 December 1984, which shows he was counseled by his unit commander for his poor duty performance since arriving at the unit. The applicant's record contains a DA Form 4856, dated 18 January 1985, which shows he was counseled by his unit commander regarding his unsatisfactory duty performance since being permanently disqualified from the PRP. On 28 January 1985, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that he be separated from the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002145C070205

    Original file (20060002145C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    David Haasenritter | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: Counsel states, in effect, that the evidence of record substantially supports the applicant’s contentions. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072348C070403

    Original file (2002072348C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant has not presented and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007599

    Original file (20130007599.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was told his general discharge would be upgraded to an honorable within 6 months to a year. He advised the applicant of his rights and that he could receive a general or an honorable discharge. He further acknowledged he could request an upgrade of a discharge which was less than honorable by making application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or ABCMR; however, the act by either board did not imply that his discharge would be upgraded.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | AR20140009947

    Original file (AR20140009947.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) by: * upgrading his general discharge to an honorable discharge * changing the narrative reason for his separation * correcting all medals and awards to include award the Humanitarian Service Medal and the National Guard Perfect Attendance Ribbon (2nd Award) 2. There is no evidence that he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's...