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