BOARD DATE:	 16 October 2014 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140004107 


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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states he was a young man who entered the military with no male figure or other persons in his life who were able to guide him and teach him how to be a responsible human being.  He believed that coming from a broken home he continued to do the wrong thing so he decided to join the military thinking it would solve his issues, but he did not understand fully what his commitment was to the United States.  He continued to make mistakes and it cost him his self-respect and the respect of his family.  He is truly sorry that he disappointed the Army, his family, and himself.  He has since become a better man, father, and husband.  He wants to be able to give his children and 
grandchildren something to be proud of.  He also requests an upgrade of his discharge to obtain Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare and loan benefits.

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty)
* Marriage certificate
* self-authored letter
* four letters of support


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 14 June 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army at the age of 19.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 31M (Multichannel Communication Equipment Operator).  The highest rank he held was private first class/pay grade E-3.

3.  On 13 February 1978, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent from his place of duty and for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

4.  On 15 March 1978, he received NJP for being derelict in the performance of his duties.

5.  On 19 December 1978, he received NJP for being absent from his place of duty to avoid field exercises and being absent from his place of duty from 0630-1630 on 5 consecutive days. 

6.  On 15 January 1979, he received NJP for two instances of failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

7.  A DA Form 4126-R (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate), dated 10 January 1979, lists his record of NJP.  The form shows his conduct and efficiency were both poor.  The applicant acknowledged he had been furnished a copy of the DA Form 4126-R and that he had been counseled and advised of the basis for his recommended bar to reenlistment.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The bar to reenlistment was approved.

8.  His complete discharge packet is not contained in his records.  However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged UOTHC on 5 March 1979 under the provisions of paragraph 14-33b(1) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations), for a pattern of misconduct – frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He completed a total of 1 year, 8 months, and 22 days of creditable active service.

9.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  He submits four letters of recommendation in support of his request.  These letters indicate he is a trustworthy, dependable and conscientious individual.

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

	a.  Chapter 14, in effect at the time, established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories included a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline).  Action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed.  A discharge UOTHC was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.

	b.  An HD was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization was clearly inappropriate.

   c.  A general discharge (GD) was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record does not support upgrading the applicant's discharge.

2.  The applicant’s age at time of enlistment was noted.  However, many Soldiers were enlisted at a younger age and went on to complete their enlistments and receive honorable discharges.  Therefore, the age of the applicant does not mitigate the applicant's misconduct that resulted in a properly-issued discharge.

3.  The complete facts and circumstances of the applicant's discharge are not available; however, his record shows he received NJP on four occasions.  This evidence supports the decision to discharge him for a pattern of misconduct based on his frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  The evidence also supports the characterization of service he received.
  
4.  In the absence of documentary evidence showing procedural errors in his discharge processing, it must be presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

5.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for discharge upgrades solely for the purpose of making applicants eligible for veterans' healthcare or other benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge.

6.  The applicant's post-service accomplishments are noted.  While it appears his post-service life has been commendable, post-service accomplishments are not normally a sufficient basis upon which to upgrade a discharge.

7.  Based on the applicant's record of misconduct, his service was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an HD or a GD.  Therefore, there is an insufficient basis upon which to grant the applicant's 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)                                         AR20140004107



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140004107



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1