Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003858
Original file (20130003858.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  5 November 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130003858 


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 reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.

2.  The applicant states the general discharge has caused an economic hardship on him and his family.  He has had to work hard to support his family because he has been unable to use his GI Bill education benefits to improve his education and skill level.  He has health problems and has been unable to obtain medical help and educational benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  His efforts to obtain an upgrade in-and-of themselves warrant favorable consideration of his request.  He contends he has had to overcome a myriad of red tape and changing requirements just to be heard. 

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) dated 11 May 1989 for Initial Active Duty for Training as an Army Reservist
* DD Form 214 dated 18 July 1991
* DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge) dated 21 February 2013 with attachments




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 attended basic and advanced individual training as an Army Reservist from December 1988 to May 1989.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 November 1989 in pay grade E-2.

3.  The applicant was stationed in Germany as a medical specialist.  He was advanced to pay grade E-3 on 1 April 1990 and reduced to pay grade E-2 on 8 August 1990.

4.  An investigation into the applicant's alleged illegal transfer of 55 cartons of duty free cigarettes into the German community also noted that the applicant had previously been cited for simple assault, drunk driving, and possession of another Soldier’s ration card. 

5.  The applicant was notified that his commander was initiating separation action for misconduct by commission of serious offense(s).  He consulted with counsel, acknowledged the consequences of receiving a general under honorable conditions discharge, and declined to submit statements in his own behalf.  The chain of command recommended approval and the separation authority directed a general discharge under honorable conditions.

6.  On 18 July 1991, the applicant was so separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations).  He had completed 1 year, 8 months, and 5 days of active duty service during this period and had 4 months and 13 days of prior active duty.




7.  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.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories commission of a serious offense,.  An offense is serious offense, if the specific circumstances warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial.  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.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a general discharge.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  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)                                         AR20130003858





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130003858



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019811

    Original file (20140019811.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    BOARD DATE: 21 July 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140019811 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 19 January 1990, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct – commission of serious offenses. The evidence of record shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000374

    Original file (20100000374.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 September 1991, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for commission of a serious offense. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 24 October 1991 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12d, for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000337

    Original file (20090000337.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 31 January 1991, the applicant’s intermediate commander recommended the applicant be separated from the Army for misconduct, commission of a serious offense with the issuance of a general discharge with an under honorable conditions characterization of service. On or about 1 February 1991, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge, under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and directed the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | AR20080018292

    Original file (AR20080018292.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 16 January 1991 the applicant acknowledged that his unit commander was initiating actions to administratively separate him from the Army for commission of a serious offense under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14. The fact that he was given an honorable discharge suggests that the administrative separation board and the separation authority likely considered the applicant’s...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010705

    Original file (20120010705.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 August 1992, the applicant was again personally informed by his battalion commander of the requirement to execute a waiver statement within 7 days. By regulation, when the new separation action was initiated, the applicant had 7 days to acknowledge, respond, and exercise his rights. It stated that individuals would be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge prior to discharge or release from active duty.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014274

    Original file (20090014274.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 November 1991, the unit commander recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 by reason of commission of a serious offense with the issuance of a general discharge, under honorable conditions. The regulation shows that the separation program designator “JKQ” as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214 specifies the narrative reason for discharge as “Misconduct-Commission of a Serious Offense” and that the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | AR20090001854

    Original file (AR20090001854.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his 1991 general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable. He states that he was the top student at the police academy and indicates that a lot has changed in the 18 years since his discharge. On 31 January 1991 the applicant’s unit commander notified him that he was initiating actions to administratively discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-12c (commission of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018187

    Original file (20140018187.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The commander would have advised the applicant of his right to: * consult with counsel * obtain copies of documents that would be sent to the separation authority supporting the proposed separation action * request a hearing before an administrative separation board if he had more than 6 years service * submit...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002205

    Original file (20150002205.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 28 June 1991 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct – commission of a serious offense in the rank/grade of private/E-1 with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. However, his service records contain a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 28 June 1991 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct – commission of a serious offense...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007061

    Original file (20090007061.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to fully honorable. On 22 February 1991, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct-conviction by civil court, and directed the applicant's service be characterized as under other than honorable conditions. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier...