BOARD DATE:	  13 June 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120021922 


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 and addition of his U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) time to his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active Duty).

2.  The applicant states he did Reserve time before active duty.  His discharge should be changed to honorable because he wasn't a bad Soldier.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents to support 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 served in the USAR from 27 December 1984 through 9 January 1986.  This included 4 months and 19 days of initial active duty training and 32 days in the Delayed Entry Program.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 January 1986 as a decontamination specialist and was advanced to pay grade E-2 less than a month later.  He was advanced to pay grade E-3 on 
21 August 1986 and to pay grade E-4 on 1 May 1988.

3.  Notwithstanding counseling for writing worthless checks on 10 July and 26 September 1988 and being absent from his place of duty on 4 November 1988, he reenlisted on 8 November 1988.  After he reenlisted he was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for the 4 November absence offense.

4.  In the months that followed, he was incarcerated for 21 days by civil authorities for driving while intoxicated.  He was counseled on numerous occasions for failing to make payments on credit purchases and failing to pay his rent, for missing medical appointments, and for failing to perform his duty and/or follow orders.

5.  In June 1990, the applicant was removed from government quarters for an incident in which the housing inspector, a sergeant first class (SFC), asked him to muzzle his dog or keep it indoors.  A statement by the SFC described the applicant's reaction that clearly amounted to contempt toward, communicating a threat to, and willful disobedience of a noncommissioned officer.  For this behavior, he was removed from government housing.

6.  The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 11 September 1990 and, on 12 September 1990, he was notified of initiated separation action with a general discharge for unsatisfactory performance.  

7.  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 discharge.

8.  At a mental status evaluation the applicant's behavior was normal.  He was fully alert and oriented and displayed an unremarkable mood.  His thinking was clear, his thought content normal and his memory good.  There was no significant mental illness.  The applicant was mentally responsible.  He was able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.

9.  The company commander recommended his separation with a general discharge under honorable conditions.  The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

10.  On 10 October 1990, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 13, with a general discharge for unsatisfactory performance.

11.  His DD Form 214 shows in:

* sub-item 12d (Total Prior Active Service) – 4 months and 19 days
* sub-item 12e (Total Prior Inactive Service) – 8 months and 21 days

12.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

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

	a.  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.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b states 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.  At that time, chapter 13 provided for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when the individual would not become a satisfactory Soldier in the commander's judgment; 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; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, was unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation would be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s misbehavior and poor performance were fully documented and clearly not honorable.  

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant's Reserve time is shown on his DD Form 214; however, Block 12 (Record of Service) shows only "Active Duty" and "Inactive Duty."  Inactive duty is Reserve time.

4.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the 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 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)                                         AR20120021922



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120021922



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1