IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  25 July 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120021604 


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 general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge.

2.  He states he was immature, young, and irresponsible.  He is now a law-abiding citizen.

3.  He provides a self-authored statement.

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 born on 4 March 1964.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 October 1983 at 19 years of age.

3.  His disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on three occasions for the following offenses:

* failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty
* disobeying a lawful order
* being absent without leave from 3 to 6 April 1986
* being incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor

4.  His record also reveals a disciplinary history that includes a bar to reenlistment and numerous adverse counseling statements for matters such as substandard performance, requiring repeated and constant supervision, inability to prepare for inspection, and substandard appearance.

5.  On 22 October 1986, the company commander notified the applicant of the proposed recommendation to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct with a general discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  He acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation action on the same date.

6.  He declined counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before a board of officers, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  On 4 November 1986, the separation authority waived rehabilitative requirements and approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of misconduct with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

8.  On 10 November 1986, he was discharged accordingly.  He completed 3 years and 21 days of creditable active service during this period with 3 days of lost time.

9.  There is no evidence 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.  He provided a self-authored statement in which he takes full responsibility for his irresponsible behavior while assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, at Fort Lewis from 1984 to 1986.  He's now a more respectable person, has been sober for 22 years, has grandchildren, and tries to lead others by example.  He would like to start new and bring honor to himself and his family.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribed 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 Soldier's overall record.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a states 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Records show the applicant was 22 years of age at the time of his offenses.  However, there is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

2.  He states he's now a law-abiding citizen; however, his good post-service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading his discharge.

3.  The evidence of record shows he received three Article 15's, he received numerous adverse counseling statements for various acts of misconduct, and he was issued a bar to reenlistment.

4.  His administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of misconduct was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

5.  His overall record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty to warrant recommendation of an honorable discharge.  Although a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for the authority and reason for his discharge, it appears that his chain of command and the final approval authority considered his overall record of service resulting in the issuance of a general discharge under honorable conditions.

6.  After a thorough review of the evidence relating to the applicant's service, the applicant has not presented sufficient evidence which warrants upgrading his general discharge to honorable.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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)                                         AR20120021604



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120021604



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1