IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  30 April 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120017254 


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 that his under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he was young and made verbal mistakes to his superiors.  He is now 45 years of age and needs his discharge upgraded.  He contends that he was offered a 4-month early out if he accepted a general discharge and lost his Montgomery GI Bill benefits.  He regrets his mistakes.  He did not think about the long-term effects of his actions.  Since his discharge, he has received an Associate of Science degree in Electro-Mechanical Design Drafting and has operated a successful business for 20 years.  He has worked hard to improve his character and has been a good citizen without a criminal record.  He is requesting this upgrade to help improve his dignity as a man and a veteran.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* Certificate of Training for Basic Training, dated 28 January 1987
* Diploma, Single Channel Radio Operator Course, U.S. Army Signal Center, Fort Gordon, GA, dated 11 May 1987
* Diploma, Airborne Course, Fort Benning, GA, dated 26 June 1987
* Diploma, Ranger Indoctrination Program, Fort Benning, GA, dated 17 July 1987
* Transcript and Diploma, Sawyer College, dated 26 April 1990
* Letter of support from employer, dated 7 February 1995
* Letter of support from employer, circa 1996
* Letter of support from employer, dated 28 February 1997
* Letter of support from business associate, dated 28 February 1997
* Letter of support from employer, dated 28 August 1997
* Certificate of Marriage, dated 29 August 1998
* Applicant's business card
* Letter of support from employer, dated 21 April 2000
* Letter of notification to applicant informing him of his fulfillment of his student loan, dated 23 May 2000
* Certification from the Minority Business Development Council, dated          1 June 2010
* Resume/employment history/education, dated 5 September 2012

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.  On 12 November 1986, the applicant, at 19 years and 8 months of age, enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his initial training to include the basic airborne course and was awarded military occupational specialty 31C1P (Single Channel Radio Operator with parachutist qualification).

3.  On 30 July 1987, the applicant was assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, GA.

4.  On 9 September 1987, the applicant was advanced to private first class, pay grade E-3.

5.  The applicant was counseled on:

* 23 October 1987: writing a personal letter while in class after being told not to do so
* 28 October 1987: monthly counseling; good work habits but attitude needed improvement
* 3 December 1987: disrespect in language and actions
* 19 January 1988: failure to follow instructions, not meeting ranger standards, disrespectful to noncommissioned officers
* 3 February 1988: quarters were not prepared for inspection
* 9 February 1988: disrespectful in language
* 8 March 1988: went on a road march without informing anyone
* 21 March 1988: disrespectful tone and insubordination
* 24 March 1988: absent from his place of duty; sleeping in his room; weapon not cleaned and not turned in to arms room
* 8 April 1988: refused to run fast enough to keep up with unit
* 15 April 1988: failed to perform assigned duties; lied; left area without permission; went to an off limits area; and drank while on deployment

6.  The applicant accepted the following nonjudicial punishments (NJPs):

	a.  on 25 March 1988: failed to perform required maintenance on his assigned vehicle; and

	b.  on 28 March 1988: broke restriction.

7.  On 30 March 1988, the commander notified the applicant of his intention to separate him from the military under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 due to misconduct.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of this action that same day.

8.  On 30 March 1988, the commander requested a waiver of the requirement for a rehabilitative transfer for the applicant due to special circumstances.  The applicant had displayed no ability to correct his behavior.  Further active service would only produce disciplinary problems for another command and it’s Soldiers.

9.  On 5 April 1988, the applicant consulted with counsel concerning his rights and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

10.  On 8 April 1988, the applicant’s commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct.  The applicant had been counseled and had received NJPs.

11.  On 8 April 1988, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate).
12.  Accordingly, on 14 April 1988 the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions.  He completed 1 year, 5 months, and 3 days of creditable active service.

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

14.  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 a pattern of misconduct.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

15.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

16.  The applicant's enclosures and letters of support essentially state that he has been a hard-working individual who has earned a degree, established a business, and has the respect of many former employers who highly recommend him as being diligent, dynamic, trustworthy, and reliable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his under honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded to honorable because he was young and made verbal mistakes to his superiors.

2.  The record shows he was counseled repeatedly for being disrespectful, not following instructions, and not performing his duties.  He twice accepted NJP for misconduct.  Clearly, his actions showed a pattern of misconduct.

3.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

5.  The applicant's contention that he was young at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The applicant was 19 years of age, had satisfactorily completed training, and had been advanced to the rank of private first class, pay grade E-3.  His satisfactory performance shows that he was neither too young nor immature to serve honorably.

6.  The applicant’s claim of good post-service conduct is noted.  However, it does not sufficiently mitigate his repeated acts of indiscipline during his military service.

7.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.

8.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20120017254





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120017254



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1