IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  28 August 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140001125 


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 reconsideration of his previously-denied request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general.  Additionally, he requests his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending on 2 March 1988 be corrected to show:

* Item 12a (Date Entered Active Duty (AD) this Period) 28 March 1986
* 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade) an unidentified date
* Item “14” (i.e., should be Item 11 (Primary Specialty Number, Title and Years and Months in Specialty)) add military occupational specialty (MOS) of 75E (Personnel Actions Specialist) 
* Item 18 (Remarks) correct results for each period of honorable service

2.  The applicant states he should have received a DD Form 214 for his service in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).  Additionally, he states he had four periods of service:  3 June 1982 to 9 October 1982, honorable; 7 January 1982 to April 1983, honorable; 27 July 1983 to 27 March 1983, honorable; and 28 March 1986 to 2 March 1988, other than honorable.  He also maintains that Item 12h on his DD Form 214 is incorrect, but he does not provide the date he believes is the correct date.

3.  The applicant provides his self-authored statement.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20130002942, on 24 October 2013.

2.  The applicant's new argument was not previously considered by the Board. 

3.  The applicant enlisted in the USAR on 7 January 1982 for a period of 6 years. On 3 June 1982, he was ordered to initial active duty for training.  He completed his training and he was awarded MOS 75E.  On 9 October 1982, he was honorably released from active duty and transferred to his USAR unit.  He completed 4 months and 7 days of net active service this period.  

4.  Item 11 of his DD Form 214 for the period ending on 9 October 1982 shows his primary MOS as 75E1O with the years and months in the specialty listed as 00 years and 00 months. 

5.  On 14 April 1983, he enlisted in the USAR Delayed Entry Program (DEP).  He remained in the DEP until 26 July 1983, at which time he was discharged and enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years the following day (27 July 1983).  He completed his training and he was awarded MOS 45N (M6OA1/A3 Tank Turret Mechanic).  On 27 March 1986, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment which was accomplished the following day.  He reenlisted on 28 March 1986 for a period of 5 years.  

6.  On 1 July 1987, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for operating a vehicle on Fort Carson, CO while drunk.  His punishment consisted of reduction from the grade of specialist four (SP4)/E-4 to PVT/E-1, suspended to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 1 January 1988.  On 30 September his reduction to grade PVT/E-1 was vacated.

7.  On 21 January 1988, court-martial charges were preferred against him for:

* disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (NCO) on
27 October 1987
* willfully and wrongfully damaging property of another Soldier on
21 September 1987
* assaulting a female civilian on 21 September 1987
* writing bad checks (7 specifications) between 11 May and 30 November 1987 
8.  On 5 February 1988, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his voluntary request for discharge, he indicated he understood if his request were accepted he could receive an under other than honorable discharge and that by submitting his request he was admitting he was guilty of the charges against him.

9.  On 25 February 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

10.  On 2 March 1988, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He completed 4 years, 7 months, and 6 days of net active service this period for a total of 4 years, 11 months, and 13 days of creditable active service.  His
DD Form 214 shows in:

* Item 4a/4b - PV1/E-1 
* Item 12a - 28 March 1986
* 12h - 1 July 1987
* Item 11 - 45M1O M60A1/A3 Tank Turret Mechanic, 3 years 4 months
* Item 18 - DEP:  14 April 1983 to 26 July 1983 and "Immediate reenlistment this period:  830727 to 860327"

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

   b.  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.

12.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations), in effect at the time, prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  

	a.  The regulation states a DD Form 214 will not be prepared for enlisted Soldiers discharged for immediate reenlistment in the Regular Army.
   
   b.  It also states, in pertinent part, to enter in item 11 the titles of all MOS or additional MOS served for at least 1 year and include for each MOS and additional MOS the number of years and months served.  For time determination, 16 days or more count as a month.  Do not count basic training and advanced individual training.

	c.  To enter in item 12a, the date entered active duty this period.

   d.  Paragraph 2-4h(18)(c) of the same regulation states that for enlisted Soldiers with more than one enlistment period during the time covered by the DD Form 214, enter in item 18 "IMMEDIATE REENLISTMENTS THIS PERIOD (specify dates)."  However, for Soldiers who have previously reenlisted without being issued a DD Form 214 and are separated with any characterization of service except honorable, then "CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM (first day of service for which DD Form 214 was not issued) UNTIL (date before commencement of current enlistment)."  Then, enter the specific periods of reenlistments as prescribed above.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence confirms that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicant's rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The record further shows he admitted he was guilty of disobeying a lawful order from an NCO, willfully and wrongfully damaging property of another Soldier, assaulting a female civilian, and writing bad checks.  The record further shows he voluntarily requested separation for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial by court-martial.

2.  The applicant's record of indiscipline does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to a general discharge.

3.  The overall merits of this case, including his argument, are insufficient as a basis to reverse the previous decision concerning an upgrade of his discharge.
4.  His record shows he enlisted in the RA on 27 July 1983 and reenlisted on 
28 March 1986.  He is not authorized a DD Form 214 for his first RA enlistment because DD Forms 214 are not issued when there is no break in service.  Likewise, he is also not entitled to a DD Form 214 for his USAR service
(7 January 1982 to April 1983 or 27 July 1983 to 27 March 1983) because that was not active duty service.  However, the evidence of record shows he had more than one enlistment period during the time covered by his RA DD Form 214 and he was separated with an other than honorable discharge.  Therefore, his RA DD Form 214 should be corrected to show his first period of service as honorable.

5.  In reference to adding MOS 75E to his DD Form 214, the evidence of record verifies that he was trained as 75E during his service in the USAR.  However, there is no evidence, and he did not provide any, to show that he performed duties as a personnel actions specialist for more than one year while in the RA to qualify for the entry to be listed on his RA DD Form 214.  In view of this fact, there is no basis for correction of item 11 on his RA DD Form 214.

6.  The applicant also maintains that his effective date of pay grade is incorrect.  However, the evidence of record shows he received an Article 15 on 1 July 1987 which consisted of a suspended reduction from E-4 to E-1.  His suspended reduction was vacated on 30 September 1987 which reverts to the initial date of the Article 15.  Therefore, his grade and effective date of rank are correct as constituted.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____x___  ____x___  ___x____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that partial relief is warranted.

2.  In regard to the new issues, the Board determined that partial relief is warranted.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

     a.  deleting from his DD Form 214 for the period ending 2 March 1988 the entry, "Immediate reenlistments this period -- 830727-860327" and

     b.  adding to item 18 of his DD Form 214 the entry "CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 830727-860327//IMMEDIATE REENLISTMENT THIS PERIOD 860328-880302."

2.  In regard to the remaining new issues, the Board determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to correcting item 12a to change his entry date, item 12h to change his grade and effective date of pay grade, item 11 to add MOS 75E, and by showing the results of each period of his service on his DD Form 214.

3.  In regard to the reconsideration issue, the Board determined that the evidence presented was insufficient to warrant amendment of the ABCMR's decision in Docket Number AR20130002942, dated 24 October 2013 by upgrading his discharge.



      
      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20140001125





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140001125



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1