BOARD DATE:	  8 May 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130015344 


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.

2.  The applicant states:

* he was raised by a bipolar-manic depressive, physically and mentally abusive, adoptive father
* he ran away at an early age and he came back home to join the service
* he was a rebellious youth
* in Germany he hung out with a group of people who got in fights and he would protect them
* since his discharge he has not been in any trouble
* he went to school
* he lives a drug and alcohol free life
* an upgrade would help with his job/career  

3.  The applicant provides:

* character reference letter
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)






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 11 February 1987 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13E (cannon field specialist).  

3.  In June 1988, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for failure to repair.

4.  In January1989, NJP was imposed against him for failing to obey a lawful order and failure to repair.

5.  On 24 March 1989, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against him.

6.  In October 1989, NJP was imposed against him for communicating a threat to injure, being absent without leave from 23 June 1989 to 24 June 1989, and using disrespectful language toward a staff sergeant and sergeant (two specifications).

7.  On 4 December 1989, he was notified of his pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (commission of serious offense).  The unit commander cited the applicant's three NJPs.

8.  On 4 December 1989, he consulted with counsel and was advised of the impact of the discharge action.  He acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if issued a general discharge and he elected to submit a statement in his behalf; however, his statement is not available.
  
9.  The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

10.  On 12 January 1990, he was discharged under honorable conditions (general) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (commission of a serious offense).  He completed a total of 2 years and 11 months of creditable active service with 1 day of lost time.

11.  He provides a character reference letter from a fellow Soldier who served with him at the time in question.  He attests:

* they served together in Germany from 1988 to 1991
* the applicant was never unpatriotic
* he requests the applicant's discharge be upgraded to honorable
* he has watched the applicant grow and become an outstanding member of his community 

12.  In 1995, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request for an honorable discharge, but corrected his narrative reason for separation to show Misconduct instead of Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense).  An undated DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) amended item 
28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 to show the entry "MISCONDUCT."  In 2003, he requested a personal appearance.  His case was closed because he failed to appear for his personal appearance scheduled on 
16 June 2004. 

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty.

	a.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense.  The regulation states that abuse of illegal drugs is serious misconduct.  The issuance of 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 character reference letter submitted on behalf of the applicant failed to show his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

2.  He contends an upgrade would help with his job/career.  However, discharges are not upgraded for the purpose of enhancing employment opportunities.

3.  He contends since his discharge he has not been in any trouble.  However, good post-service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

4.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  His record of service included three NJPs, a bar to reenlistment, and 1 day of lost time.  As a result, his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

6.  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 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)                                         AR20130015344





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130015344



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1