IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 31 January 2013
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120019530
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, in effect, an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states:
* Upon leaving Korea, he was assigned to Company B, 3rd Forward Support Company, Fort Stewart, GA
* He was unaware that he was assigned to B Company and attached to Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment
* He requested a psychiatric evaluation but never received one
* When he went through the separation process he was led to believe only E-5s and above were entitled to talk to a lawyer
* He is not looking for any compensation; he is only looking for the truth
* He was never given a copy of his chapter packet
3. The applicant provides 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 applicants 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 applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. As a matter of clarity:
a. The applicant requests a review of the chapter he received in 1997. This is a function of the Army Discharge Review (ADRB). There is no indication he applied to the ADRB for a review of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. Although he did not specify what records correction he seeks, this case is being considered as a request for an upgrade.
b. The applicant's official records do not contain his separation packet or his DD Form 214. However, he provides sufficient documents (DD Form 214 and an argument) for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.
3. The applicant's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 January 1995. He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 52C (Utility Equipment Repairer).
4. He was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar, and Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.
5. The complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available for review with this case. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 25 February 1997 under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), for misconduct, in the rank/grade of private first class/E-3 with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service. This form also shows he completed a total of 2 years, 1 month, and 15 days of creditable active service during this period. He was issued Separation Code "JKN" which stands for pattern of misconduct.
6. 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, 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. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldiers overall record.
7. 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 members 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 applicants record is void of the complete facts and circumstances that led to his discharge. However, his record contains a properly-constituted
DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 25 February 1997 under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct pattern of misconduct with an under honorable conditions characterization of service.
2. Absent evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. It is also presumed that his discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.
3. Based on his record of indiscipline, his service does not appear to have met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to upgrade his discharge to 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) AR20120019530
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120019530
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001167
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his military service records by removing any and all records related to misconduct during his military service, a change to the reason of his discharge, and upgrade of the character of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. On 3 May 2000, the company commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action to effect his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011488C070208
The ADRB, after considering his case on 16 January 1997, denied his request. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013223
x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant states, in effect, that in 1992, he was discharged from the Arkansas Army National Guard (ARNG) with a less than honorable discharge because of a positive drug urinalysis. While in the opinion of the separation authority, the applicant's overall record of service supported the issue of a GD instead of an UOTHC discharge at the time of his separation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022157
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 25 July 1990, the discharge authority approved the elimination packet and directed that the applicant be issued a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct. The evidence of record shows he received three Article 15's, he failed to be at his appointed place of duty, he broke restriction, and he missed a battalion movement.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016069
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The record does contain a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that shows that on 10 November 2004 the applicant was separated under the provisions of Paragraph 14-12b, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct, and that she received an UOTHC discharge. Absent any evidence of record or independent evidence provided by the applicant that confirms she...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000895
The following members, a quorum, were present: The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 9 May 1989. Absent any evidence of record or independent evidence provided by the applicant that would suggest the authority and reason for his discharge were unjust, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002936
On 20 October 1997, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for patterns of misconduct. There is no evidence the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008084C071029
The applicant’s discharge packet is not available. The applicant’s ADRB packet shows the applicant’s commander notified the applicant on 8 January 2001 of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018974
The applicant requests, in effect, that the narrative reason and authority for discharge and its corresponding reentry eligibility (RE) code be corrected to a more favorable reason, authority and code. Army Regulation 635-200 states, in pertinent part, that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004240
The applicant requests the characterization in item 24 (Character of Service) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed to read under honorable conditions instead of uncharacterized. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants 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...