IN THE CASE OF:	 

		BOARD DATE:	  1 October 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140002936 


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 an upgrade of his discharge under honorable conditions (general) to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that during his time in the military he achieved high praise and after leaving the military he has led a high standard life because of the time he served.

3.  The applicant provides:

* Certificate of Achievements (three)
* Permanent Orders 111-99 dated 21 April 1997
* A 2013 Patriot of the Year Certificate
* Certificate of Nomination for Official Membership in The American Legion
* 2005 Disabled American Veterans Commanders Club Certificate of Appreciation
* National Personnel Records Center letter dated 13 January 2014
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) dated 12 December 1997
* DA Form 4 Series (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document)
* DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II)
* Personnel Qualification Record – Part I
* DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) dated 10 July 1997
* DA Form 2627 dated 16 August 1996
* DA Form 2627 dated 24 October 1997
* Orders 301-0116 dated 28 October 1997
* Orders 336-0121 dated 2 December 1997

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 16 February 1995.  He completed training as a heavy wheel vehicle mechanic.

3.  The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three separate occasions between 16 August 1996 and 24 October 1997 for making false statements to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command and for failure to go at the time prescribed to his  appointed place of duty (five separate occasions).

4.  He was counseled on at least six separate occasions between 2 April 1997 and 22 September 1997 for failure to repair (four separate occasions).

5.  On 20 October 1997, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for patterns of misconduct.  His commander cited making false statements and failing to be at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty as the basis for his recommendation.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 21 October 1997.  After consulting with counsel, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

6.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 12 December 1997, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, due to patterns of misconduct.  He completed 2 years, 9 months, and 27 days of net active service this period.  He received a General Discharge Certificate.

7.  There is no evidence the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

8.  The applicant provides copies of Certificates of Achievement he received while he was in the Army.  He also provides copies of certificates he received showing his good post-service conduct and copies of documents contained in his official record.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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 minor disciplinary infractions (a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline), commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  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.

	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 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 applicant's contentions have been noted.  However, his contentions are not supported by the evidence of record.

2.  The available records show he accepted NJP on three separate occasions for acts of misconduct and he was counseled on at least six occasions.  Considering the nature of his offenses and his numerous acts of misconduct, it does not appear that the type of discharge he received was too harsh or unjust.

3.  According to Army Regulation 635-200, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under the provisions of chapter 14.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record.  Obviously, the separation authority took into consideration his overall record of service when he directed the issuance of a general discharge.

4.  The type of discharge he received appropriately reflects his overall record of service.  Post-service conduct alone is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant 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)                                         AR20140002936



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140002936



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1