IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 10 October 2013
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130003575
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 to an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states the determination of his discharge was unjust in his opinion.
3. The applicant provides a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States).
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 10 March 1981. He completed training as a tank crewmember.
3. The applicant's records show he was counseled on at least 22 separate occasions between 1 November 1981 and 2 October 1982 for the following offenses:
* having an overdrawn savings account
* failing to repair
* backing into a tank causing $200.00 in damages
* missing guard mount
* falling out for formation in the wrong uniform
* failing to follow instructions
* failing to clean his room
* wearing a ripped uniform
* not controlling his temper
4. He accepted nonjudicial punishment on at two occasions for:
* being disrespectful in language toward his superior noncommissioned officer
* dereliction of duty
* failing to go to his appointed place of duty
5. The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not available. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions (general) due to unsatisfactory performance on 12 November 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13.
6. There is no evidence showing the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
7. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for the 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
* the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely
b. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.
c. 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. The applicant's contentions have been noted and his supporting evidence has been considered.
2. The applicant has not proven error or injustice in the type of discharge he received.
3. The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available. However, the available evidence shows he was counseled on numerous occasions and he accepted nonjudicial punishment on two separate occasions regarding his offenses and acts of indiscipline.
4. It appears that the character of service he received appropriately reflects his service at the time of his discharge. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that what the Army did in his case was correct.
5. In view of the foregoing, his request should be denied.
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) AR20130003575
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130003575
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017609
The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to honorable and, in effect, a change of the narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation date of 15 February 1983. There is no mention in the decision of evidence of treatment for his condition in his service medical record. He clearly had not met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017764
Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect, at the time, established RE code 3 as the proper reentry code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The RE codes...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009131C070205
Jeffrey Redmann | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant was discharged on 12 January 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant’s service record shows he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 on five separate occasions and a bar to reenlistment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004778
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. A review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal any evidence the applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Thus, the evidence of record refutes the applicant's contention that he was a good Soldier during the period of service under review.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018828
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable and amendment of his narrative reason for separation to hardship. The applicant contends he enlisted at age 18 and he had never been away from home. He was 18 years old when he enlisted and successfully completed training.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020987
The applicant was accordingly discharged on 19 October 1983. There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of his discharge processing within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009928
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 September 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080009928 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 17 December 1982, the applicant's commander notified the applicant that the commander was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for unsatisfactory performance. The appropriate authority approved the applicant's discharge for unsatisfactory performance and directed the applicant to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016009
On 12 November 1982, she was notified by her immediate commander that discharge action was being initiated against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance and a general discharge was being recommended. Her record is void of any evidence, and she did not provide any evidence, that shows while serving on active duty she was treated for, or diagnosed with a mental/medical condition/disorder...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007558
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Records show the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand on 1 October 1981 for overall unsatisfactory performance. He has not provided any evidence to mitigate the actions that he took during his period of active service; therefore, he has not established a basis to justify upgrading his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010936
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 11 July 1983 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant's record of service included adverse counseling statements and one nonjudicial punishment.