Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018919
Original file (20130018919.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE:	  28 January 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130018919 


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 be upgraded to honorable.  Additionally, he requests a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

2.  He states he lost his DD Form 214 and is now incarcerated.

3.  He does not provide any additional evidence.

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 requested a copy of his DD Form 214.  A copy of this document will be provided to the applicant by separate correspondence and as a result, it will not be discussed further in this Record of Proceedings.

3.  After having prior service in the Army National Guard, on 1 April 1994, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.

4.  His disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on 29 May 1996 for wrongfully using marijuana between 10 April and 10 May 1996.

5.  On 12 July 1996, the unit commander notified the applicant he was initiating action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c.  Specifically, the commander said the applicant's wrongful use of marijuana which led to a field grade Article 15 was the basis for the discharge action.

6.  On 12 July 1996, the applicant consulted with military counsel.  After being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects and the rights available to him, he elected not to submit a statement in his behalf.  He acknowledged that he understood that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge was issued to him.  He further acknowledged that he understood if he received a character of service which was less than honorable he could make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for an upgrade of his discharge.  However, he understood that an act of consideration by either board did not imply that his discharge would be upgraded.  He also understood that he would be ineligible to apply for enlistment in the U.S. Army for a period of 2 years after discharge.

7.  On 30 July 1996, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

8.  His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under honorable conditions on 
28 August 1996 by reason of misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.  He was credited with completing 2 years, 4 months, and 28 days of active service.

9.  There is no indication he applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.


10.  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 abuse of illegal drugs.  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 Soldier's overall record.  

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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 available evidence confirms that all requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The record further shows his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

2.  Based on this record of indiscipline, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to 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)                                         AR20130018919





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130018919



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022527

    Original file (20120022527.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 28 October 1996, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct – commission of a serious offense. On 23 December 1996 subsequent to a legal review for legal sufficiency and consistent with the chain of command's recommendation, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012633

    Original file (20100012633.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant did not provide a reason for this request. On 6 March 1991, the applicant was advised by his unit commander that he was initiating action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c for misconduct (commission of serious offenses) with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He understood that if he received a discharge less than honorable, he may apply to the Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009367

    Original file (20100009367.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. Accordingly, on 22 May 1990, he was counseled that administrative separation action would be initiated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019501

    Original file (20140019501.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 March 1988, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him for misconduct in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c by reason of commission of a serious offense. On 4 May 1988, subsequent to a review for legal sufficiency and consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge with his service...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008917

    Original file (20100008917.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 July 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend that he be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, commission of the following serious offenses: he wrongfully operated a vehicle while under the influence on 4 July 2002, 21 October 2002, 23 September 2005, and 3 June 2006. He acknowledged that if he received a less than honorable characterization of service, he may make an application to the Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019434

    Original file (20090019434.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He further acknowledged that if he received a discharge certificate/character of service which was less than honorable, he may make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged on 10 June 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Additionally, paragraph 14-3...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012146

    Original file (20100012146.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 April 1992, the applicant was notified by his unit commander of the initiation of action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He further understood that if he receives a discharge less than honorable, he may make application to the Army Discharge Review Board or this Board for upgrading; however, an act of consideration by...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013953

    Original file (20110013953.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). 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. 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012684

    Original file (20120012684.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 January 1996, he was discharged under honorable conditions (general) in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. His misconduct diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge and he has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014201

    Original file (20140014201.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests her general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. When she returned, her drill sergeant told her to just tell them that she had a drug problem as a child and they would let her out of the Army, then they could be together.