IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 September 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140001325 


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. 

2.  The applicant states his discharge should be upgraded because he has upgraded himself to a better person.  He is doing well in his community and he still respects the Armed Forces.

3.  The applicant provides no 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 November 1984.  On 21 May 1986, he was assigned to the 1st Engineer Battalion, Fort Riley, KS.

3.  Between August 1986 and June 1987, he was frequently counseled by several members of his chain of command for sleeping on guard duty, failing to maintain a proper uniform, being absent from his appointed place of duty on numerous occasions, acting in an inappropriate or an unacceptable manner, failing to follow instructions, and performing his duties in a substandard manner. 

4.  On 30 April 1987, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from his appointed place of duty from 11 to 14 April 1987.

5.  On 15 June 1987, his immediate commander was notified that the applicant was being removed from the Military Institution Course (MIC) he had been enrolled in due to his attitude, lack of motivation, failure to follow instructions, not completing course assignments, and his repeated failure of inspections.

6.  On 9 July 1987, he was notified by his immediate commander that discharge action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  The commander stated the specific reasons were the numerous counselings he received for his unsatisfactory performance, the Article 15 he received for being AWOL, and his failure of the MIC.  The commander further stated he was recommending him for a general discharge. 

7.  On 16 July 1987, he acknowledged receipt of the notification of his proposed discharge action.  He consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effect on future enlistment in the Army, of the procedures and rights available to him, and the possible effects of a general discharge.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  On 28 July 1987, the separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 30 July 1987, he was discharged accordingly.

9.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with an under honorable conditions characterization of service.

10.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

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

	a.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provides that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.

	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 evidence of record confirms the applicant demonstrated he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel as evidenced by the numerous times he was counseled for his poor performance and attitude, the NJP he received for being AWOL, and his failure of the MIC.  Accordingly, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him.

2.  His separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation were therefore appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  Although his post-service conduct may be noteworthy, it does not mitigate the fact that he failed to adhere to military standards during his active duty service.

4.  Based on his overall record, his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct 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)                                         AR20140001325





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140001325



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1