BOARD DATE:	  3 December 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130004216 


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 that his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states at the time of his discharge, he had just a few months earlier reenlisted and had plans to be a career Soldier.  He then got involved with a woman who had him confused and he allowed his judgment to lapse.  He has since grown to be a good, law-abiding citizen who has been married almost 20 years and has three beautiful children.  He would like to be able to look back on his time in the Army with the pride of the first 4 years and not be judged by the blemish of the last 2 months that he spent being foolish.

3.  The applicant provides his DD form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

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's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 October 1985.  Upon completion of initial entry training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (Food Service Specialist).  The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was specialist four/E-4.  However, at the time of his discharge he held the rank/grade of private (PV2)/E-2.

3.  The applicant's record reveals a disciplinary history that includes

	a.  being apprehended by civil authorities for outstanding traffic violations and being held in a county jail from 28 March to 3 April 1989.

	b.  his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) between June 1987 and October 1989 on five occasions for the following offenses:

* Failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty
* Absenting himself from his unit

4.  The complete facts and circumstances leading to the applicant's discharge are not available for review with this case.  However, his DD Form 214 shows:

* he reenlisted on 24 February 1989
* he was discharged on 14 February 1990
* he completed 4 years, 2 months, and 14 days
* his service was characterized as Under Honorable Conditions (General)
* he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12(b)
* his narrative reason for separation was "Misconduct - Pattern of Misconduct"
* his dates of time lost were from 14 June 1987, 28 March to 2 April 1989, 20 September to 7 October 1989, and 18 December 1989 to 8 January 1990

5.  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.

6.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 deals with separation for various types of misconduct and provides that individuals identified as offenders may be separated prior to their normal date of expiration of term of service.  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.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his general discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge was carefully considered.

2.  His contentions regarding his post-service achievements and conduct were considered.  However, good post-service conduct alone is not normally a basis for upgrading a discharge.  

3.  The applicant contends he was a good Soldier until 2 months prior to his discharge.  However, the evidence clearly shows he was a substandard Soldier for almost a year before his discharge who had a record of numerous disciplinary infractions and a failure to respond to the rehabilitative efforts exerted by his chain of command for several years.  By his own admission, he allowed his judgment to lapse and behaved in a foolish manner.

4.  The evidence of record shows he was discharged due to a pattern of misconduct.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no 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 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)                                         AR20130004216





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130004216



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1