IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  19 February 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130011330


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, in effect,

* correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show the National Defense Service Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
* issuance of the National Defense Service Medal 

2.  The applicant states his service dates meet the criteria for these awards.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214

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 3 April 1998 and he held military occupational specialty 95C (Corrections Specialist).  He was assigned to the 705th Military Police Battalion, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

3.  Between 28 October 1998 and 23 January 2001, he was frequently counseled by various members of his chain of command for repeatedly failing the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), failing to meet Army weight standards, being uncooperative in his training, repeatedly failing to report to his appointed place of duty, being absent without leave (AWOL) for 3 days, acting unprofessional, having a poor attitude, and being involved in a domestic incident wherein he was charged with assault.

4.  On 1 April 2001, a Bar to Reenlistment Certificate was placed against him for the reasons outlined in the paragraph above and, on 1 July 2001, the Bar to Reenlistment Certificate was reviewed and left in place.

5.  On 6 August 2001, he was notified by his immediate commander that discharge action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct - patterns of misconduct.  The commander stated he was initiating the action because he had established a pattern of misconduct and he was recommending he receive a general discharge.

6.  The separation authority subsequently approved the applicant's discharge action and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 17 September 2001, he was discharged accordingly.

7.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b by reason of misconduct with an under honorable conditions characterization of service.  His DD Form 214 also shows he was awarded or authorized the:

* Army Service Ribbon
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Pistol Bar
* Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar
* Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar

8.  On 10 January 2014, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge to an honorable discharge.  The ADRB determined his discharge was appropriate as his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty.  His misconduct diminished the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 
9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Paragraph 14-12b provided for separation for a pattern of misconduct.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the:

	a.  National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable active service for any period between 27 July 1950 and 27 July 1954, 1 January 1961 and 14 August 1974, 2 August 1990 and 30 November 1995, and 11 September 2001 and a date to be determined.  

	b.  Global War on Terrorism Service Medal is authorized for award to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who have participated in the Global War on Terrorism operations outside of the designated areas of eligibility (AOE) on or after 11 September 2001 to a future date to be determined.  All Soldiers on active duty on or after 11 September 2001 to a date to be determined having served 30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days are authorized the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable service for any period after 11 September 2001.  Although the applicant served on active duty from 11 to 17 September 2001, the evidence of record does not show that he served honorably during this period.

2.  He was frequently counseled for failing the APFT and Army weight standards, repeatedly failing to report to his appointed place of duty, being AWOL, being unprofessional, and having a poor attitude.  In addition, he had been charged with domestic battery and had a Bar to Reenlistment Certificate had been placed against him.  

3.  This misconduct did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel that would constitute honorable service and he was subsequently discharged on 17 September 2001 under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, paragraph 14-12b by reason of misconduct with a general discharge.

4.  With respect to the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the criteria for this medal requires a Soldier to be on active duty on 11 September 2001 and to serve at least 30 consecutive days from that date.  Although the applicant was serving on active duty on 11 September 2001, he was discharged on 17 September 2001 and had only 7 days of qualifying service for this medal.  

5.  In view of the foregoing, he is not entitled to 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)                                         AR20130010014



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130011330



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1