Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011633
Original file (20130011633.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  27 February 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130011633 


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, in effect, that since leaving the Army he has endeavored to become a good husband, father, and respected member of his community and church. 

3.  The applicant provides a one-page letter explaining his request. 

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 10 January 1989 for a period of 3 years and 14 weeks.  He completed one-station unit training as an infantryman at Fort Benning, Georgia and was transferred to Fort Ord, California for his first and only duty assignment.

3.  On 23 August 1991, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct – pattern of misconduct.  He cited the following as the bases for his recommendation:

* 20 September 1990 – check cashing privileges suspended for indebtedness
* 16 April 1991 – counseled for failure to pay just debts
* 14 May 1991 - counseled for failure to pay just debts
* 20 June 1991 – failure to go to his place of duty
* 25 June 1991 – counseled for cashing checks on over-stamped ID Card
* 10 July 1991 – nonjudicial punishment imposed for being incapacitated for proper performance of duties

4.  After consulting with defense counsel the applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

5.  On 28 August 1991, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

6.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 6 September 1991 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct – pattern of misconduct.  He had served 2 years, 7 months, and 
27 days of active service.

7.  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.

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

	a.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct.  Specific categories include 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.
	b.  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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the characterization and the narrative reason for separation were appropriate for the circumstances of his case.

3.  The applicant's contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the repeated nature of his offenses and his failure to respond to repeated counseling. 

4.  Accordingly, the applicant's overall service simply did not rise to the level of a fully honorable 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)                                         AR20130011633



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130011633



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005036

    Original file (20130005036.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show in item 12a. His DD Form 214 issued at the time of his discharge shows that he entered active duty on 22 March 1989 and that the Narrative Reason for Separation was “Misconduct – Pattern of Misconduct.” 9. The evidence of record clearly shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 22 March 1989.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066677C070402

    Original file (2002066677C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge on 1 October 1999 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct (pattern of misconduct). Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002066677SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20020226TYPE OF DISCHARGE(GD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19991001DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR 635-200 Chapter 14 DISCHARGE...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006189C070206

    Original file (20050006189C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 June 1988, the applicant received two adverse counseling statements for willfully damaging non-military property, failure to pay court and assault fines, failure to be at place of duty at prescribed time, and failure to report to the charge of quarters for extra duty. On 25 August 1988, the separation authority waived rehabilitative requirements and approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct – pattern...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023643

    Original file (20100023643.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 July 1991, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct - a pattern of misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200, Table 3-1 (Types of Discharge Certificates), in effect at the time, provided for the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate (DD Form 257A) for Soldiers whose service was characterized as "Under Honorable Conditions." However, the separation authority may direct a general...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020684

    Original file (20110020684.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 26 June 1995, the applicant's commander recommended his separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050013537C070206

    Original file (AR20050013537C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    William Crain | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 3 March 1982, the applicant’s commander initiated action to bar the applicant from reenlistment. The commander also initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct based on his established pattern of showing dishonorable failure to pay his just debts.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000880

    Original file (20120000880.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 June 1999, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge. On 9 July 1999, he was discharged under honorable conditions (general discharge) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct (patterns of misconduct). Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010822

    Original file (20110010822.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her record shows she was counseled: a. on 13 September 1990, for indebtedness and checks returned due to insufficient funds and warned that further violations would result in action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); b. on 17 December 1990, for her continued indebtedness and warned if she continued to have financial problems she could be "dishonorably chaptered out of the Army"; and c. on 8 January 1991, for a letter of indebtedness, dated 4 January 1991, and informed she...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000912

    Original file (20140000912.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 25 March 1992, the applicant was advised by his unit commander that he was initiating action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b for a pattern of misconduct. He acknowledged he understood that if he received General Discharge Certificate, he may apply to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or this Board for an upgrade of his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021601

    Original file (20110021601.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was discharged under honorable conditions (a general discharge) on 30 March 2000 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct (pattern of misconduct). Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. The letters submitted on behalf of the applicant fail to show his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.