BOARD DATE: 1 May 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130014125
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 his general discharge (GD) upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD) and his reason for separation be changed.
2. The applicant states being 17 years old and on active service was stressful. He asks that he be given some leeway due to his immaturity and inexperience. His reason for separation should be changed to something that more closely resembles his actual tour of duty.
3. The applicant provides no supporting documentation.
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, at age 17 years and 8 months, enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 December 1984, completed training, and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewman).
3. On 31 January 1987, the applicant was arrested by civilian authorities for public intoxication.
4. On 3 February 1987, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for disobeying a direct order (two specifications) and disrespectful conduct toward a noncommissioned officer.
5. On 24 April 1987, the applicant was convicted by a civilian court of driving under the influence of intoxicants.
6. On 26 May 1987, his command initiated separation proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct. The specific reasons cited were two alcohol-related offenses, displaying resentment to authority, apathy, and difficulty adapting to changes. It was recommended that the provision for rehabilitative transfer be waived and that he be discharged with a GD.
7. After consulting with counsel the applicant acknowledged the separation action and waived his right to submit a personal statement.
8. The separation authority approved the waiver of rehabilitative transfer and directed the applicant be discharged with a GD. He was discharged on 9 June 1987 with a GD.
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. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious 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. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldiers overall record.
10. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states 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 members 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. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
2. The applicant was almost 18 years old when he enlisted, he successfully completed basic and advanced training, and had served without recorded incident for over two years before committing the offenses that led to his discharge. This service documents the fact that he had the capacity to serve honorably.
3. The reason for his discharge is appropriate to the offenses that led to that discharge and his initial period of good service appears to have been taken into account as he was afforded a GD when in most cases a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate.
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) AR20130014125
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130014125
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003647C070205
The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 14 January 1986, after having completed 1 year, 11 months, and 21 days of military service in the United States Army Reserve (USAR). On 21 August 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct, and directed he receive a GD. Further, normally Soldiers separated for misconduct receive an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002510
The applicant requests his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). In the counseling statement it was noted the applicant's performance was considered unsatisfactory. On 28 July 1987 the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for misconduct -commission of a serious offense with a GD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000363
On 19 January 1988, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct, citing the previous UCMJ offenses of falling asleep on guard duty, missing formation, attempting to use another member's meal card, and failing to go to his appointed place of duty. On 22 January 1988, the separation authority approved the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011775
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 March 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060011775 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The evidence of record shows the applicant was issued only one DD Form 214 on the date of his separation, 17 March 1988.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006773C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier's overall record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199706838
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Accordingly on 6 July 1987 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 2 months, and 8 days of active military service. On 1 July 1988 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199706838C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Accordingly on 6 July 1987 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 2 months, and 8 days of active military service. However, regulations currently in effect list the reason for the applicants discharge as misconduct and do not include the term drug abuse in the narrative description of the reason for separation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010028
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The fact that the applicant essentially stated that he is only requesting that his discharge be upgraded so that he may have the opportunity to be buried in a military cemetery was noted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016400
Although a UOTHC conditions discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter, the separation authority may issue a GD or HD if warranted by the member's overall record of service. Further, the applicant's record of military service was not sufficiently meritorious for the separation authority to support an HD or GD at the time of his discharge, nor does it support an upgrade at this time. Further, even if the GD was properly issued based on documentation not on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007915
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). On 28 April 1987, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense, with either an HD or GD based on testing positive for cocaine on 26 February and 31 March 1987. The evidence of record also confirms the applicant's separation processing was...