IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  4 June 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120019971 


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 upgrade of his general discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

* he was given the choice of a general discharge and told it would be automatically upgraded in 6 months
* he never checked it until now
* he did stupid things because of alcohol while he was in the Army and was never given any treatment
* he now knows he is an alcoholic and he has been in recovery for 
     12 years
* he has worked for the Department of Commerce for the last 8 years

3.  The applicant provides a 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 25 March 1986 for a period of 
3 years.  He completed his training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 95B (military police).  

3.  On 24 March 1988, he was convicted by a special court-martial of willfully destroying military property and wrongfully appropriating military property.  He was sentenced to be confined for 6 months, forfeit $447.00 pay per month for 
6 months, and reduction to E-1.  On 14 April 1988, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for confinement for 60 days, forfeiture of $447.00 pay per month for 2 months, and reduction to E-1. 

4.  On 13 May 1988, he was notified of his pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The unit commander cited:

* his special court-martial conviction
* his Article 15 (no other details available)

5.  On 13 May 1988, he consulted with counsel and he acknowledged he understood he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge was issued.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

6.  On 16 May 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

7.  On 24 May 1988, he was discharged accordingly with a general discharge.  He completed 2 years and 11 days of creditable active service with 50 days of lost time.

8.  There is no evidence of record which shows he was diagnosed with alcohol abuse or dependency.

9.  There is no evidence that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 13 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.

	b.  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.

11.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends he was told his discharge would be upgraded after 
6 months; however, a discharge upgrade is not automatic.

2.  He contends he did stupid things because of alcohol while in the Army and he was never given any treatment.  However, there is no evidence of record and he provided no evidence which shows he was diagnosed with alcohol abuse or dependency prior to his discharge.  In any case, he could have self-referred for treatment. 

3.  His sobriety and post-service accomplishments are commendable.  However, good post-service conduct alone is normally not a basis for upgrading a discharge.


4.  His record of service included one special court-martial conviction for willfully destroying military property and wrongfully appropriating military property.  As a result, his quality 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.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns; however, he elected not to do so.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant 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 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)                                         AR20120019971





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120019971



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1