IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	    1 May 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130015516 


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 that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

2.  The applicant states that he has been discharged for almost 30 years and would like an upgrade of his discharge so he can move forward with his life.  Since his discharge he has been a productive citizen and has provided for his family in every way possible and would like to be able to advance in his job to a higher position.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), a two-page letter explaining his application, a resume, four third-party letters, and two training certificates.

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 6 November 1979 for a period of 3 years, training as an infantryman, and assignment to Europe.  He completed his one-station unit training at Fort Benning, Georgia and was transferred to Germany on 19 February 1980 for assignment to an infantry company in Baumholder.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 October 1981. 

3.  On 7 May 1982, he reenlisted for a period of 6 years and a selective reenlistment bonus.  He departed Germany on 5 May 1983 and was transferred to Fort Carson, Colorado.

4.  On 5 December 1983, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for writing multiple bad checks.

5.  On 9 December 1983, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.

6.  On 1 February 1984, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 22 December 1983 to 9 January 1984.

7.  On 15 February 1984, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.

8.  On 5 March 1984, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s disciplinary record, his decline in performance, writing of bad checks, and his failure to pay just debts.

9.  After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

10.  The appropriate authority (a brigadier general) approved the recommendation for discharge on 22 March 1984 and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

11.  Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on    29 March 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph   14-12c, due to misconduct.  He had served 4 years, 4 months, and 9 days of active service and had 15 days of lost time due to AWOL.
12.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct.  Specific categories included minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, and commission of a serious offense, which includes drug offenses.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

14.  Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 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.

15.  Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions regarding his discharge and supporting documents have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the repeated nature of his offenses.  The applicant's overall service simply did not rise to the level of a discharge under honorable conditions or fully honorable.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  Accordingly, the characterization and the narrative reason for separation were appropriate for the circumstances of his case.

4.  In the absence of evidence showing that 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

________  ________  ________  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.




      _______ _   _______   ___
               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)                                         AR20130015516





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130015516



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1