IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 29 October 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140002792
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 upgrade of his general discharge.
2. The applicant states he had never had a bank account before he joined the Army. His actions arose out of ignorance rather than being willful. Since then he has learned about budgeting and personal finance.
3. The applicant provides no supporting documentation.
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. On 13 July 1993 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed training as an artillery fire support specialist and progressed to pay grade E-2.
3. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice in January and March 1994 for absences from his place of duty.
4. He was counseled in December 1993 about absence from his place of duty and twice in February 1994 for displaying a poor attitude and disrespect to a noncommissioned officer and for poor job performance. Additionally, he was counseled numerous times about writing bad checks.
5. On 12 April 1994, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate action against him with a general discharge for a pattern of misconduct. The applicant indicated he would submit a statement in his own behalf but none was received by 19 April.
6. The immediate commander recommended a general discharge in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, Patterns of Misconduct. The applicant's battalion commander recommended approval.
7. The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed he receive a general discharge.
8. On 5 May 1994, the applicant was accordingly discharged. He had completed a total of 9 months and 23 days of creditable active duty service.
9. There is no available indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board during his 15-year period of eligibility.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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 Soldiers overall record.
b. Paragraph 3-7a states 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 members 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 applicant's behavior evidenced a pattern of misconduct and clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty expected of Army personnel.
2. The applicant's administrative discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. In addition, the reason and type of discharge directed were appropriate and equitable based on the facts of the case.
3. There is no basis for granting the requested relief.
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) AR20140002792
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140002792
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011205
The applicant requests an upgrade of her general discharge to an honorable discharge. On 23 September 1994, the separation authority approved her discharge action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 and directed that she be given a general discharge. Based on her record of misconduct including the commission of a serious offense her service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007400
The applicant states: a. The company commander stated the reasons for the proposed action were the applicant's involvement with a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Government and larceny of Government property, failing to maintain control of a Government vehicle while driving, failing to re-register his vehicle, and being punished under Article 15 for driving while drunk. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021324
The applicant's immediate commander notified him on 22 March 1994 of his intent to initiate separation action against the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct pattern of misconduct. The applicant's immediate commander recommended his separation from the Army on 22 March 1994, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013506
His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of misconduct with his service characterized as Under Honorable Conditions (General). His service medical records are not available for review. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged for misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011319
On 25 May 1994, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 14 of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations), for misconduct. On 23 June 1994, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge, under the provisions of chapter 14 of AR 635-200 by reason of misconduct and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. A discharge under other...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002620
On 21 January 1994, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of unsatisfactory performance. He declined to make a statement on his own behalf and further acknowledged that he understood that: * he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005368
On 9 December 1993, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 14-12(b) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), for misconduct - pattern of misconduct. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged on 28 January 1994 in accordance with chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Records show the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014444
The applicant requests his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He acknowledged he understood that if he received a discharge/character of service which is less than honorable, he may make application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or this Board for upgrading. Although an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate for the authority and reason for his discharge, it appears the separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024007
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge to fully honorable. On 19 December 1994, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct and directed the applicant be furnished an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The evidence of record further shows the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050010216
He was discharged with a general discharge after completing 3 years and 8 months of a 4-year enlistment. He understood that if he received a general discharge certificate, he could make an application to the ADRB or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for upgrading [of his discharge]. The applicant was a Soldier with over three and one-half years of service, who departed AWOL in December 1993 for 12 days, who had received an Article 15 just the month previously, and...