BOARD DATE: 16 April 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130013840
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 to honorable.
2. The applicant states:
* his discharge was supposed to be honorable
* he completed 4 years and 8 months of a 5-year tour of duty
* his grandmother who raised him died and he was beside himself
* he wanted to be at his grandmother's funeral and he asked for an early release
* he tried to cope by speaking with a preacher
* his commander told him his discharge would automatically be upgraded to honorable, but he lied
* he was injured while serving in Germany and he kept serving
* he is a disabled veteran
* his commander let him go because he was grieving
* he protected the President several times
* he was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for saving a Soldier's life
* he was chosen for special details
3. The applicant provides:
* two self-authored statements
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* miscellaneous documentation pertaining to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)
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 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 31 August 1993 for a period of 5 years. He completed his training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 95B (military police).
3. He received a letter of reprimand on 24 September 1996 for reporting for duty with the odor of alcohol emitting from his person.
4. He was counseled for:
* being drunk on duty
* his gross display of unprofessionalism
* being unfit for duty due to alcohol
5. On 10 February 1998, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being incapacitated for duty due to overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs.
6. On 9 April 1998, he was notified of his pending separation for patterns of misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b. The unit commander cited the applicant's NJP, adverse counseling statements, and a letter of reprimand as reasons for the recommended separation.
7. He consulted with counsel and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
8. On 15 April 1998, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge for patterns of misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, and directed the issuance of a general discharge.
9. On 23 April 1998, he was discharged accordingly. He completed 4 years, 7 months, and 23 days of creditable active service.
10. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
11. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense (military or civilian offense), and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.
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.
12. The U.S. Army does not currently have nor has it ever had a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in character of service. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the character of service or the reason for discharge, or both, was/were improper or inequitable.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends his commander told him his discharge would automatically be changed to honorable. However, a discharge upgrade is not automatic.
2. His record of service included a letter of reprimand, adverse counseling statements, and one NJP. As a result, this record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
3. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. He had an opportunity to submit a statement wherein he could have voiced his concerns; however, he elected not to do so.
4. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant an 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 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) AR20130013840
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130013840
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020260
BOARD DATE: 15 March 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100020260 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for pattern of misconduct. He stated the applicant accepted NJP on 2 February 1998 and on 7 May 1998.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016928
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 11 October 1994, the applicant was notified of the initiation of separation action against him for patterns of misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000598
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). In his election, he acknowledged that because he had less than 6 years service, he was not entitled to have his case heard by an administrative separation board unless he was being considered for an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. The separation authority may issue an HD or GD if warranted by the overall record of service; however, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021601
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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003741
On 28 August 1998, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for unlawfully breaking and entering into the house of JC, on 12 April 1998, with the intent to commit larceny and wrongfully appropriating a television and stereo system, the property of JC, valued at more than $100.00. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he received a general under honorable conditions discharge by reason of "misconduct." Records show he was almost...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012323
The applicant contends it has been over 20 years since his discharge under other than honorable conditions. His subsequent honorable service in the Alabama Army National Guard and his active duty service during the period 15 March 2003 to 25 May 2003 are commendable and were carefully considered. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002651C070206
On 5 November 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty. He was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for misconduct, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and of the rights available to him. On 13 June 1985, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635- 200, chapter 14-12b, for misconduct-pattern of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020276
On 6 February 1998, his battery commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. The DA Form 2627 documenting the NJP shows his use of marijuana had been detected by testing a urine sample he provided on 20 January 1998. a. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020276
On 6 February 1998, his battery commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. The DA Form 2627 documenting the NJP shows his use of marijuana had been detected by testing a urine sample he provided on 20 January 1998. a. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017130
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant states he suffered with a drug addiction during his military service. It appears that he was separated in pay grade E-4 and issued a general discharge based on his overall record of service.