IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  18 June 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120021417 


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 discharge under other than honorable conditions to general under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states his discharge was the result of only one incident in his records.  He requested separation after being involuntarily extended and his family was returned to the United States because he could not afford to live on the local economy.  The discharge is preventing him from furthering a career on law enforcement.  He was very young, only 21 years old, when the decisions were made.  In the years since he left the service he has matured and learned a lot.  He is not seeking any benefits.  He only wants a chance to attend the police academy.

3.  The applicant provides a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal) in support of his request.

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 was 19 years and 5 months old, married, and had a 10-month old daughter when he enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 November 1986.  He completed training as a materiel storage and handling specialist and was stationed in Germany.

3.  He apparently was not eligible for command sponsorship of his family.  The applicant's dependents traveled to Germany at his expense and obtained housing on the local economy.  He developed financial difficulties which he quickly compounded by writing numerous bad checks.  In December 1988, a financial planner worked with him on a budget, but the applicant's net take-home pay was a negative $39.22 per month and his family's living expenses were $784.94 per month.

4.  On 30 January 1989, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for writing five worthless checks totaling approximately $558.00 with intent to defraud.

5.  On 23 February 1989, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating separation action for his commission of serious offenses.  He was recommending the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

6.  On 23 February 1989, the applicant consulted with counsel and elected to not submit statements in his own behalf.  He acknowledged that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life due to the character of the recommended discharge.

7.  On 23 February 1989, a mental status evaluation determined the applicant's behavior was normal.  He was fully alert and oriented and displayed an unremarkable mood.  His thinking was clear, his thought content was normal, and his memory was good. There was no significant mental illness.  The applicant was mentally responsible.  He was able to understand and participate in the proceedings.

8.  The company commander recommended the applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general).  He noted that in addition to the checks involved with the NJP incidents, the applicant was behind on two accounts, owed 2 months in back rent, and 380 Deutsche Marks (DM) for overdue traffic fines (about $630.00 in U.S. currency).

9.  On 21 March 1989, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed his discharge under other than honorable conditions.

10.  On 3 April 1989, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 14, for commission of a serious offense.

11.  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.  Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

	c.   Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include commission of a serious offense.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  A military or civil offense is a serious offense when separation is warranted and the Manual for Courts-Martial authorized a punitive discharge for the same or a similar offense.

12.  The Table of Maximum Punishments of the Manual for Courts-Martial shows a punitive discharge is authorized for writing bad checks and failing to maintain sufficient funds to pay checks.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant states this is the only incident in his records and that he was very immature.

2.  In fact, he committed numerous serious offenses.

3.  The mental status evaluation found him mentally responsible and able to participate in the proceedings.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall record of military service.

4.  The applicant provided no evidence or a convincing argument to support his request.

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)                                         AR20120021417



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120021417



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1