IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  16 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120006888 


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 discharge.

2.  The applicant states his discharge was based on his response to questions from his unit commander regarding whether or not he desired to remain in the Army.  He claims, at age 23, he did not understand the implications of a general vice honorable discharge.  He states he desperately wanted to attend college and chose to be discharged.  He admits he was having some issues in garrison, but had been recognized as an outstanding Soldier in the field.  He claims he was young and with good guidance and counseling, he would have finished the remaining 8 months of his enlistment.

3.  The applicant provides no 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 April 1981 and held military occupational specialty 13F (Fire Support Specialist).  The highest rank/grade he attained during his military service was specialist four/E-4.  However, he held the rank/grade of private/E-1 at the time of discharge.

3.  He served in Germany from 29 July 1981 to 24 July 1983.  He was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16), and First Class Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Hand Grenade Bar. 

4.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as follows:

* on 16 November 1983, for engaging in a fist fight with another Soldier
* on 14 June 1984, for twice failing to go to his appointed place of duty, disobeying a lawful order, and using disrespectful language toward a superior noncommissioned officer
* on 15 August 1984, for being absent from his place of duty
* on 21 August 1984, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on three occasions 
* on 31 August 1984, for disobeying a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer

5.  His records show during his service he was frequently counseled by several members of his chain of command for various infractions including being late to duty, lack of motivation, and other infractions. 

6.  On 24 August 1984, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) due to unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge.   

7.  On 24 August 1984, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's notification and he subsequently consulted with legal counsel.  He was advised of the bases for the contemplated separation action for unsatisfactory performance, the type of discharge he could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights that were available to him.  He elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.  He further acknowledged he understood he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him and he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.

8.  His immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge under honorable conditions.  

9.  On 31 August 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance with the issuance of a general discharge under honorable conditions.  Accordingly, he was discharged on 4 September 1984.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he completed 3 years, 4 months, and 28 days of creditable active service with no lost time. 

10.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board within that board's 15-year statute of limitation.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.  A general or honorable discharge was considered appropriate.

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 available evidence shows his duty performance was tarnished by multiple instances of NJP and a history of negative counseling.  Accordingly, his chain of command initiated separation action against him.  The evidence further shows his separation processing was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and there is no evidence of procedural errors that would have jeopardized his rights.  His general discharge is commensurate with his overall record of military service.  

2.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an 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)                                         AR20120006888



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120006888



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1