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
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013226
The DD Form 214 he was issued for this period of service shows he completed 3 years, 9 months, and 2 days of creditable active service. On 18 November 1988, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct, specifically the abuse of illegal drugs, and recommended the applicant receive an under other than honorable conditions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014555
On 27 April 1989, the applicant's commander notified him that action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) for misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs. The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult with counsel, his right to obtain copies of documents that would be sent to the separation authority supporting the proposed separation action, to request a hearing before...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003529
The applicant requests his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 20 February 1990, the applicant's company commander notified him that he was intending to take action to discharge him for the commission of a serious offense based on his being medically diagnosed as drug (cannabis and alcohol) dependent. On 28 February 1990, the applicants commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, due...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011791
The applicant requests upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to a general discharge. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge. ___________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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008558
Block 24 (Character of Service) of the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued to him at the time shows that he received a "General, (Under Honorable Conditions)" characterization of service. Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) shows "Misconduct - Abuse of Illegal Drugs." The applicant's records show he was nearly 22 years of age at the time of his enlistment and there is no evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013973
The applicant requests upgrade of the character of service of his general under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant contends his general under honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge because he was young and foolish; he believed that his discharge would be automatically changed to an honorable discharge six months after his separation from the Army; and he would like to qualify for government benefits. In addition,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014754
Only Soldiers assigned to an active status in a Reserve Component or individuals in active Federal service are authorized to earn retirement point credit. However, the letters from the DAIG and 1st U.S. Army DCSPER provided by the applicant show that corrective action was taken with respect to the adverse actions taken against him by his battalion commander. The available evidence also shows his transfer to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) in 1987 was not punitive or an adverse...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007850
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to a fully honorable discharge. On 15 November 1989, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense, assault. On 22 November 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002539
The applicant contends that he should not be held accountable for failure to pursue the non-selection issue within a reasonable period [he notes the 2-year window provided for in Army Regulation 135-155] because he should have been discharged from the Army Reserve either 8 years after his original enlistment or 8 years after his appointment as a warrant officer one (WO1). The applicant provides in support of his request for reconsideration of his case copies of the DA Form 1059, 9 January...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007349
On 5 January 1989, the applicants commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations), chapter 14-12b, for patterns of misconduct. He states he loves his wife and children and wants to do what is right for them and does not want to get out of the Army. The evidence of record shows he was medically cleared for separation under chapter 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200, and there is no...