IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  16 July 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120021241 


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 under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states his performance during basic combat and advanced individual training was outstanding.  He joined the Army when he was 17 years old and decided that it was not something he wanted to do for the next 6 years after he was stationed in Germany.  He was hazed by members of his unit as the new guy.  He was jumped and wrapped in chains while they poured buckets of ice cold water on him.  He figured it was part of indoctrination and just sucked it up, but that added to his decision to request to be released from the service.  He requested to be released from the service, and he subsequently received a general discharge under honorable conditions due to poor performance.  He requests forgiveness for his decision as an immature young adult to request an early release from the service.  He has since gone to college and earned a degree and is successfully working in the field of information technology.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his application. 

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 27 May 1983, he enlisted, at the age of 17, in the Regular Army for 
4 years.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11H (Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons Crewman).  On 20 September 1983, he was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 
30th Infantry in Germany.

3.  He was referred to the Community Health Resource Center on 1 and 14 November 1983 for suicidal gestures.  In both cases the applicant admitted the gesture was attention seeking for the purpose of obtaining a discharge.

4.  On 2 December 1983, he was referred for a psychiatric evaluation due to suicidal gestures.  The examiner found the applicant:

* did not have a major psychiatric disorder that would warrant disposition through medical channels
* had characterological traits which would lead to a recurrence of present difficulties should he be retained
* was cleared psychiatrically for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command
* was poorly motivated for continued military service and treatment would be non-productive

5.  On 28 December 1983, his commander notified him he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance due to his unwillingness to conform to military life.  He was recommending he receive a General Discharge Certificate.

6.  The commander advised the applicant of his right to:

* consult with counsel
* submit statements in his own behalf
* review documents to be presented to the separation authority
* waive any of these rights
* withdraw any waiver of rights at any time prior to the date the discharge authority directs or approves his discharge
7.  On 29 December 1983, the applicant acknowledged he had been advised by consulting counsel of:

* the basis for the contemplated action to accomplish his separation for unsatisfactory performance and its effects
* the rights available to him
* the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights

8.  The applicant elected not to submit statements in his own behalf and further acknowledged he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge was issued to him.  He acknowledged he understood:

* he was ineligible to apply for enlistment in the Army for 2 years after discharge
* he could make application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for a discharge upgrade, but there was no implication his discharge would be upgraded

9.  His commander recommended the applicant's separation from the service because of unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.  

	a.  Discharge was specifically recommended for unsuitability because of apathy and inability to adjust to military life.  

	b.  The applicant had attempted to commit suicide on two occasions since his arrival to the unit.  These attempts were to gain attention and to facilitate his discharge.  

	c.  He could not perform the simplest of tasks such as guard duty.  He was an extremely disruptive force within the company and an unnecessary burden on his chain of command.  

	d.  The commander recommended that the requirements for rehabilitative transfer be waived because further retention on active duty would create serious disciplinary problems or a hazard to the military mission, or to the individual, and would be inappropriate because the applicant was obviously resisting all rehabilitation attempts.

10.  The appropriate authority:

* waived a rehabilitative transfer
* approved the recommendation for discharge
* directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate

11.  On 20 January 1984, he was discharged due to unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.  He completed 7 months and 24 days of active service that was characterized as under honorable conditions.  

12.  The applicant applied to the ADRB to upgrade his discharge.  On 
4 November 1987, the ADRB reviewed and denied the applicant's request for upgrade.  The ADRB determined that the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable and that the discharge was properly characterized as under honorable conditions.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 13 provided for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when, in the commander's judgment:

* the individual would not become a satisfactory Soldier
* retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale
* the service member would be a disruptive influence in the future
* the basis for separation would continue or recur
* the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future including potential for advancement or leadership, was unlikely

	b.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance was characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

	c.  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 had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  His age at the time of his enlistment was noted.  However, many Soldiers enlisted at a young age and went on to complete their enlistments and receive honorable discharges.  Therefore, his age cannot be used as a reason to change a properly-issued discharge.
2.  He was advised and he acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued to him.

3.  The evidence shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with regulations in effect at the time.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The records contain no indication of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized his rights.

4.  His suicidal gestures solely to gain attention to obtain a discharge clearly show he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

5.  His accomplishments, as he stated, since he left the service are noted.  However, post-service conduct and accomplishments are insufficient justification to change a properly-issued discharge.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis to upgrade his 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)                                         AR20120021241



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120021241



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1