BOARD DATE:  20 December 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120011035


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 honorable.

2.  The applicant states his actions were due to the early onset of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  He had just returned from a combat theater of operations.  He does not have a copy of his California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) psych file, but he is currently seeking treatment.  He just found out that PTSD from that time frame would entitle him to benefits.  He served his country in war and one stupid act shouldn't follow him.

3.  The applicant provides copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).
 
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 20 June 1989.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 31C (Single Channel Radio Operator).

3.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows in:

	a.  item 5 (Oversea Service) that he served in Saudi Arabia from 12 October 1990 through 16 April 1991;

	b.  item 9 (Awards, Decorations and Campaigns) the Army Service Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars, and the Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)
(KLM-SA); 

	c.  item 18 (Appointment and Reductions) the highest grade he held was private first class (PFC); and

	d.  item 35 (Record of Assignments) he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, from 10 January 1990 until 22 April 1992. 

4.  He received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on 22 March 1992, for altering an official document, with intent to deceive.

5.  His record shows he was counseled on poor duty performance on at least five occasions, twice failed the Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFT), and was enrolled in the Army Weight Control Program.

6.  The applicant was informed that his company commander was initiating elimination action because of his unsatisfactory performance for failing two APFTs, falsifying official military documents, and his enrollment in the Army Weight Control Program.  He was a mediocre to poor performer who requires continual supervision to accomplish simple missions.

7.  A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 17 March 1992, showed his behavior was normal, he was fully alert, his mood was unremarkable, and his thinking process was clear.  It was the opinion of the examining official  that he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the separation proceedings.   

8.  On 9 April 1992, the company commander recommended the applicant's separation with a general discharge.

9.  The applicant consulted with counsel, waived his rights, and acknowledged that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he were issued a general discharge.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

10.  On 13 April 1992, the appropriate authority approved the separation and directed issuance of a general discharge.  On 23 April 1992, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 13.  He had completed 2 years, 10 months, and 4 days of creditable service.

11.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge during its 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  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.

	b.  Chapter 13 sets forth the policy and procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provides 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no available evidence to substantiate the applicant's assertion that his actions were the result of early onset of PTSD.  

2.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with all requirements of law and applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the narrative reason were therefore appropriate and equitable.

3.  The evidence of record shows the applicant demonstrated that he could not or would not meet acceptable standards.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment, twice failed the APFT, was counseled several times for poor duty performance, 


and was enrolled in the Army Weight Control Program.  Accordingly, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him and recommended a general discharge based on his record.

4.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he requests.  Therefore, the applicant 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 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)                                         AR20110002275



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120011035



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1