BOARD DATE:	  19 December 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130007012 


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 correction of his military service records to show his official name change, modification of his narrative reason for discharge, and an upgrade of his general discharge based on a review of his military service records.

2.  The applicant states that he is a veteran, married with one adult child, and an indigent prisoner.

   a.  The District Court of Richmond, VA, approved his official name change to "M--- A--- M----."

   b.  He states he has a service-related disability and suffers from on-going medical and mental health issues that cause him to be unemployable.

3.  The applicant provides an affidavit, his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), and request for military service records.

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 DD Form 1966 (Application for Enlistment - Armed Forces of the United States), completed by the applicant on 20 July 1984, shows in section I (Personal Data), item 2 (Name) his name as "D--- F--- M----."  It also shows the applicant's name was verified using his birth certificate.  The applicant and a recruiter placed their signatures on this document.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 25 July 1984 and he further enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) in the rank of private first class (PFC)/pay grade E-3 on 3 October 1984 under the name "D---F--- M----."

4.  Upon completion of training he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C (Motor Transport Operator).  He was assigned overseas to Germany on 1 March 1985.

5.  On 7 January 1986, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him for unsatisfactory performance.

   a.  The specific reasons for his action were based on the applicant breaking restriction, disregarding a lawful order, missing formation, failing to be at his appointed place of duty on time, indebtedness, irresponsible acts (i.e., motor pool violations), and driving without a license.

   b.  The applicant was advised of his rights and the separation procedures involved.  He was also advised that the least favorable characterization of service he may receive as a result of the separation action was an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

6.  The applicant acknowledged that he had been advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, the rights available to him, and the effect of a waiver of his rights.

   a.  He was also advised of the effect a general discharge under honorable conditions would have on him in civilian life.

   b.  He acknowledged he understood that if he received a discharge which was less than honorable, he may apply to the Army Discharge Review Board or the ABCMR for an upgrade; however, the act of consideration by either board did not automatically imply that his discharge would be upgraded.

   c.  He indicated that he would not submit statements in his own behalf.

   d.  He indicated that he understood that he was not being considered for a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

   e.  The applicant and his counsel placed their signatures on the document.

7.  The company commander recommended approval of the applicant's separation action.  The separation action also included a:

* Standard Form (SF) 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 17 December 1985, that shows the applicant indicated he was in good health
* SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 17 December 1985, that shows the examining physician found the applicant qualified for separation
* DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 
17 December 1985, that shows the applicant was found mentally responsible and that he met medical standards

8.  The separation authority approved the recommendation for the applicant's discharge, directed that he be discharged for unsatisfactory performance, and that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 31 January 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  His service was characterized as under honorable conditions.

   a.  He completed 1 year, 3 months, and 28 days of net active service this period.

   b.  He was authorized the Army Service Ribbon and awarded the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

10.  A review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal any evidence of an approved official name change.

11.  The applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal any evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

   a.  Chapter 13, in effect at the time, 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; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.

	b.  Chapter 3, 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.

13.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations - Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, or release from active duty service or control of the active Army.  It also establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.

	a.  Chapter 2 contains guidance on the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It states that the source documents for entering information on the DD Form 214 will be the enlisted qualification record, separation approval authority documentation, separation orders, or any other document authorized for filing in the Official Military Personnel File.

	b.  Paragraph 2-4 contains item-by-item instructions for completing the DD Form 214.  The instructions for item 1 state to enter the name in all capital letters.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his military service records should be corrected to show his official name change, modification of his narrative reason for  separation, and an upgrade of his general discharge based on a review of his military service records.


2.  The applicant contends that his name was officially changed by the District Court in Richmond, VA.

   a.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant provides insufficient evidence to show he had an official name change during the period of his military service.

   b.  Therefore, considering all the evidence of record, applicable law, and regulations, there is insufficient evidence to warrant a change of the name in his military records and/or on his DD Form 214 because it accurately reflects his name at the time he was discharged from military service on 31 January 1986.

3.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant provides insufficient evidence that shows he had an unfitting condition during his period of military service.  In fact, records show the applicant underwent a physical examination and mental status evaluation during his discharge processing and he was found medically qualified for administrative discharge.

4.  The evidence of record shows the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance was administratively correct and in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  In addition, the reasons for and the type of discharge directed were appropriate and equitable.

5.  The applicant's military records were carefully reviewed and considered.

   a.  Records show the applicant completed training and was awarded MOS 64C, he was authorized the Army Service Ribbon and awarded the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, and the highest grade he attained was PFC/E-3.

   b.  The evidence of record also shows the applicant's separation for unsatisfactory performance was based on him breaking restriction, disregarding a lawful order, missing formation, failing to be at the appointed place of duty on time, indebtedness, irresponsible acts, and driving without license.

   c.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's character of service during the period under review clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel and he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

6.  Therefore, in view of all of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the 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)                                         AR20130007012



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130007012



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1