IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  25 March 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130013054 


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 an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states his discharge characterization was not justified as he served his first 3 years with no disciplinary problems at all and he was placed in a leadership role at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  When he got to the Defense Language Institute (DLI), he realized he was in over his head and requested to be assigned to a different military occupational specialty but was refused.  He states it was bad enough being discharged for unsatisfactory performance, but he has lived with that shame for 22 years and believes he deserves an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 30 December 1987 for a period of 3 years and training as a parachute rigger.  He completed basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey; parachute training at Fort Benning, Georgia; and advanced individual training as a parachute rigger at Fort Lee, Virginia, before being transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for his first assignment.  He was advanced to pay grade E-4 on 28 February 1990.

3.  On 18 July 1990, the applicant extended his enlistment to a period of 41 months in order to participate in the Bonus Extension and Retraining Program.

4.  On 29 October 1990, he was transferred to the DLI at the Presidio of Monterrey, California, to attend basic Russian language training.

5.  On 1 April 1991, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for the wrongful distribution of alcoholic beverages to Soldiers under age.

6.  On 13 April 1991, he was command-directed for a blood alcohol test due to suspicion of being under the influence of alcohol while on duty.  The hospital report indicated he was unfit for duty due to his blood/alcohol level.  The applicant was command-referred and enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program.  He was also removed from the promotion standing list.

7.  During the period 6 December 1990 to 14 May 1991, the applicant was counseled on at least 11 occasions for the following:

* repeated offenses of failing to go to his place of duty at the appointed time
* failing to complete homework
* writing bad checks and suspension of check cashing privileges
* failing to be prepared for inspection and being intoxicated while on duty
* failing to participate in class
* repeatedly violating company standing operating procedures and displaying unprofessional behavior

8.  On 9 May 1991, the applicant was disenrolled from the DLI due to a lack of ability.

9.  On 17 June 1991, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13.  He cited the applicant's lack of motivation and self-discipline and his repeated failure to respond to counseling as the basis for his recommendation.

10.  On 18 June 1991 after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf wherein he asserted that he had worked hard as a rigger and only experienced problems at the DLI when his wife's grandmother died.  He stated it put a lot of pressure on him and eventually led to his separation and financial problems.  He stated he did not desire to be discharged and wanted a second chance to prove himself in a different specialty.

11.  On 20 June 1991, the applicant's platoon sergeant submitted a memorandum to the applicant's commander recommending his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He stated that since the applicant's arrival his attitude and performance were less than impressive, at best.  He believed the applicant had the desire to remain in the military but not the discipline and motivation to follow through with that desire.  The applicant continued to show lack of concern for barracks room standards, company policies, and uniform appearance.  The applicant was aware that he had a drinking problem and wanted to stop, but continued to drink.  The applicant said he is taking care of his financial obligations, yet he continued to receive phone calls from the applicant's creditors for bills that are 4 months overdue.  In the last 4 months the applicant had been given numerous opportunities to turn himself around and has not.

12.  On 24 June 1991, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

13.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 12 July 1991 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He completed 3 years, 6 months, and 13 days of active service.

14. There is no evidence in the available records showing he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 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.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

16.  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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no violations or procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering the available evidence.

2.  The applicant's contentions have been considered; however, given his numerous infractions during such a short period of service, his contentions alone are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

3.  In the absence of evidence showing an error or injustice occurred in his case, there appears to be no basis to grant his request.

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 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)                                         AR20130013054



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130013054



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1