IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  6 December 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120009731 


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 discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

* He had a few minor infractions that included failure to report for duty on time
* He had personal conflicts with the platoon leader who discriminated against him and this led to the platoon leader always recording when he was late
* He believes the personal conflict between him and his platoon leader led to a general discharge that he did not deserve

3.  The applicant provides no documentary 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 6 November 1990.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (light wheel vehicle mechanic). 

3.  He was counseled for:

* indebtedness
* missing formation
* failure to report and drinking excessive amounts of alcoholic beverages
* failure to prepare for duty
* failures to repair
* failure to meet financial obligation

4.  Between February 1994 and July 1994, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him on four occasions for failure to repair.

5.  A bar to reenlistment was imposed against him on 26 July 1994.

6.  On 26 September 1994, he was notified of his pending separation for misconduct (patterns of misconduct) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-12b.  The unit commander cited his dishonored checks and numerous incidents of failure to repair.

7.  On 26 September 1994, he consulted with counsel, acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued, and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.

8.  On 30 September 1994, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

9.  On 17 October 1994, he was discharged under honorable conditions (general) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct (patterns of misconduct).  He completed a total of 3 years, 11 months, and 12 days of creditable active service.

10.  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.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense (military or civilian offense), and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.

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 contends he had personal conflicts with the platoon leader who discriminated against him.  However, there is no evidence of record which shows he was a victim of discrimination. 

2.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns; however, he failed to do so.

3.  Although an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 14, it appears the separation authority considered the applicant's total service when he directed the issuance of a general under honorable conditions discharge.

4.  His record of service included numerous adverse counseling statements for various offenses, a bar to reenlistment, and four NJPs.  As a result, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant 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 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)                                         AR20120009731



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120009731



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1