Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007072
Original file (20120007072.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  16 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120007072 


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, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

2.  The applicant states that at the time of his discharge, he was experiencing family and personal hardships.  He believes he was a good Soldier until that time and he is proud to have served his country.  He contends that he is now paying for that moment in his life when he was young and did not realize the impact of not having an honorable discharge.  

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 24 July 1964.  After having honorably served in the Army National Guard from 15 March 1982 to 14 March 1985, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 February 1986.  

3.  His military records contains several counseling forms that show he was counseled on numerous occasions for infractions that include failure to maintain a telephone in his off-post housing, failure to follow instructions, missing formations, missing movement, and failure to report.  

4.  On 6 January 1988, he was notified by his commander that he was being considered for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, with a general discharge.  The commander cited the applicant's repeated counseling by his chain of command for his poor duty performance, lack of initiative, lack of motivation, and poor military appearance as justification for the proposed separation.  The commander also indicated he felt the applicant's ability to perform duties effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, was unlikely.  

5.  On 7 January 1988, he consulted with legal counsel and acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation action.  He also acknowledged he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge was issued to him.  He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

6.  On 14 January 1988, he submitted a statement in which he indicated that in the past, he had trouble waking up in the morning due to difficulties in falling asleep at night.  He said it was a problem he was trying to resolve before his enlistment in the Regular Army and despite the long hours of the military, he felt that he was making progress.  He offered that a recent series of conflicts at home, work, and within himself resulted in aggravating the problem.  He sought assistance from friends, family, counselors, chaplains, and psychiatrists, and the conflicts at home and within himself were greatly alleviated.  

7.  On 25 January 1988, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, and directed the applicant receive a general characterization of service.  Accordingly, he was discharged on 12 February 1988 with his service characterized as general, under honorable conditions.  He completed 1 year-, 11 months, and 
23 days of active duty service.

8.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

9.  There is also no evidence indicating he was experiencing family and personal hardships which caused him to commit acts of misconduct.  

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, 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.

11.  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 contention that his discharge should be upgraded because he was experiencing family and personal hardships and he was young and did not realize the impact of not having an honorable discharge has been carefully considered.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms his separation processing was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  He was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and to provide a statement in his own behalf.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  Based on the fact that his record of indiscipline includes numerous counseling statements for a number of infractions, his overall record of service did not support the issuance of a fully honorable discharge at the time and it does not support an upgrade of his discharge now.

4.  He contends that he was experiencing family and personal hardships prior to his discharge; however, there is no evidence in his military records that support this contention.  

5.  He also contends that he was young and did not realize the impact of not having an honorable discharge; however, age is not a mitigating factor.  He had previously served honorably in the Army National Guard.  Additionally, he was 
21 years and 6 months old at the time of his enlistment in the Regular Army and there is no evidence indicating he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their active duty service.  

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the requested relief.

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)                                         AR20120007072



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120007072



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010068

    Original file (20100010068.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge and change of his narrative reason for separation to hardship. Evidence of record shows a DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation) on the applicant was completed on 9 February 1988, which cleared him for separation. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000357

    Original file (20140000357.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Their father was the sole provider for the family until the applicant began sending a $250.00 monthly allotment home to help the family. d. The applicant didn't tell their father that he had left his duties in the military until sometime later. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000057

    Original file (20100000057.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He provided the following counseling statements to substantiate his recommendation. Applicant is waiting on a Medical Board for a medical discharge. Applicant has not showed any improvement and is taking a lot of training time away due to personal problems.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000409

    Original file (20120000409.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under honorable conditions (general) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant states he was very young at the time and the other Soldier involved admitted the drugs were his. The available records do not show that the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04106644C070208

    Original file (04106644C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The reason for separation was recorded as “expiration of service obligation.” Although the applicant indicated in his application to the Board that he was a current member of the Army National Guard, there was no new enlistment contract in records available to the Board. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE Codes, based on their service records or the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015113

    Original file (20140015113.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her record contains a DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form), dated 18 October 1988, which shows she was counseled regarding payment of an outstanding debt in the amount of $420.00 and the fact that she would not be granted stateside leave until she paid the debt. On 18 September 1989, the applicant's unit commander notified her that he was initiating action which could result in separation from the Army with a general discharge under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018828

    Original file (20140018828.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable and amendment of his narrative reason for separation to hardship. The applicant contends he enlisted at age 18 and he had never been away from home. He was 18 years old when he enlisted and successfully completed training.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100738C070208

    Original file (2004100738C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 25 August 1989, the applicant’s unit commander notified him of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a based on minor disciplinary infractions and advised him of his rights. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant submitted a request for a hardship discharge or that he met the criteria for a hardship discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019881

    Original file (20080019881.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). At the time of his discharge the applicant had completed 3 years, 7 months, and 5 days of net active service during the period of service under review. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was notified by his company commander of his intent to initiate separation action to effect the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020275

    Original file (20130020275.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130020275 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. He acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges or lesser included charges and that, if the request was accepted, he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and be furnished a UOTHC Discharge Certificate. It was these charges and his request for discharge that resulted in the UOTHC characterization of his discharge and narrative reason for separation.