IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 31 October 2013
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130004556
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 be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states that he is currently seeking employment and an upgraded discharge would assist him in being more competitive in the job market.
3. The applicant provides a copy of 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 June 1989 for a period of
4 years and training as a materiel storage and handling specialist. He completed basic training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and advanced individual training at Fort Lee, Virginia and he was transferred to Fort Myer, Virginia for his first and only assignment.
3. On 26 November 1991, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for shoplifting a jacket from the Post Exchange.
4. On 2 December 1991, the applicant was arrested by civil authorities for driving on a revoked license and possession of cocaine.
5. On 18 December 1991, the applicants commander notified the applicant that she was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct commission of a serious offense.
6. After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
7. On 19 February 1992, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
8. Accordingly, on 28 February 1992, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, due to misconduct commission of a serious offense, with a General Discharge Certificate. He had served 2 years,
8 months, and 21 days of active service.
9. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct. Specific categories included minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, and commission of a serious offense, which includes drug offenses. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
11. Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.
2. The characterization and the narrative reason for separation were appropriate for the circumstances of his case.
3. The applicants contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the nature of his offenses. The applicants overall service simply does not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge.
4. Additionally, the Board does not upgrade a discharge simply for the purpose of increasing an individuals employment prospects.
5. Accordingly, there appears to be no valid basis to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
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) AR20130004556
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130004556
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019059
The applicant requests that her general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant states her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) incorrectly shows she was discharged for misconduct. There is no evidence in the available records to show she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015562
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020846
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 23 January 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct commission of a serious offense. __________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 | CY2012 | 20120002260
There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Although an honorable or general is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007473
The applicant states that: * his discharge was inequitable because it was based on two isolated incidents over 16 years of faithful service * the action was too severe and he was never afforded the opportunity for rehabilitation * he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal * he attended the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course and other courses * he signed a conditional waiver in which he agreed to waive consideration by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016181
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002334
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. Inasmuch as he was properly discharged for misconduct in accordance with the applicable regulations and since there is no evidence to show otherwise, there is no basis for upgrading his discharge to an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002334
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. Inasmuch as he was properly discharged for misconduct in accordance with the applicable regulations and since there is no evidence to show otherwise, there is no basis for upgrading his discharge to an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029886
He goes on to state that at the time he was 22 years of age and the incident for which he was charged occurred in 1986 when he was 14 years of age. On 1 October 1997, after reviewing all of the available evidence in his case, the ADRB determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable under the circumstances and voted unanimously to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017524
On 23 March 1992, the applicants immediate commander initiated a Bar to Reenlistment Certificate against the applicant citing his two instances of nonjudicial punishment, civilian DWI conviction, and history of counseling. There is no evidence in the applicant's record, and the applicant did not provide substantiating evidence, that shows he suffered from shock before, during, or subsequent to his service in the war (presumably Southwest Asia). The evidence of record shows that the...