IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  4 November 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140005510 


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 honorable conditions (general) discharge from the Wisconsin Army National Guard (WIARNG). 

2.  The applicant states:

* prior to his entry into the military, a police officer found some drugs in his apartment and returned with a recruiter to enlist him
* he explained to the recruiter that he had prior drug use and this was not a good idea; the recruiter insisted that he lie
* he gave the Army a 100 percent effort; but he failed
* he is sorry for his actions; it has been 18 years since his discharge
* he now has medical issues, including schizophrenia, depression, and other illnesses

3.  The applicant provides:

* Letter, dated 12 March 2013, from a doctor
* Letter, dated 10 April 2006, from a clinical psychologist
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service)
* List of family diseases
* Multiple post-service certificates of training, and/or appreciation
* Multiple photographs of former President Ronald Reagan with certificates of authenticity
* Certificate of Baptism
* Photograph and Birth Certificate of a child
* A card from a child to the applicant
* A photograph of Former President George Bush and Former First Lady Laura Bush
* Multiple cards, diplomas, certificates, and/or transcripts
* Correspondence from Former President Bush and the Governor of California

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 WIARNG for 8 years on 6 July 1994.  He was assigned to the 32nd Military Police (MP) Company, Milwaukee, WI. 

3.  On 21 June 1995, he entered active duty for training and completed the required training for award of military occupational specialty 95B (MP).  On 
20 October 1995, he was honorably released from ADT to the control of his State ARNG unit due to completion of ADT.

4.  The complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge from the ARNG are not available for review with this case.  However, his records contain: 

	a.  DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG)), dated 10 January 1996, that shows he was flagged for adverse actions effective 7 January 1996. 

	b.  Orders 048-520, issued by the Office of The Adjutant General, Madison, WI, dated 11 March 1996, ordering the applicant's discharge from the ARNG effective 11 March 1996 under the provisions of paragraph 8-26q of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management) with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. 
	c.  NGB Form 22 that shows he was discharged from the ARNG effective 11 March 1996 under the provisions of NGR 600-200, paragraph 8-26q (Acts or Patterns of Misconduct), with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. He completed 1 year, 8 months, and 6 days of ARNG service and he was assigned Reentry Code 3 (indicating he could reenter military service with a waiver). 

5.  On 16 February 2007, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed his discharge but found it proper and equitable.  As such, the ADRB denied his petition for an upgrade of his discharge. 

6.  He provides: 

	a.  Letter, dated 12 March 2013, from a doctor who states the applicant has been under her care for the past 6 to 7 years with a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. 

	b.  Letter, dated 10 April 2006, from a clinical psychologist who states the applicant had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. 

	c.  A picture of a child and a card to her dad. 

	d.  Multiple post-service certificates of acknowledgement, achievement, admission, and/or appreciation. 

	e.  Multiple pictures of Former Presidents of the United States. 

7.  NGR 600-200 establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the management of ARNG enlisted Soldiers.  Chapter 8 of the version of the regulation in effect at the time provided for the separation of enlisted Soldiers from the ARNG.  Paragraph 8-26 specified the reasons for administrative discharges from the ARNG.  Paragraph 8-26q stated members of the ARNG may be discharges for misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs.  The discharge of a Soldier from the ARNG is a function of the State military authorities and in accordance with State laws and regulations.  However, due to the dual status of a Soldier as a Reserve of the Army, Army Regulation 135-178 (Enlisted Administrative Separations) is used to determine the type of discharge and character of service to be issued. 

8.  Army Regulation 135-178 sets policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of ARNG and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons.  On separation from the ARNG, the Soldier’s service will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions, or the service is described as uncharacterized.  Characterization at separation will be based upon the quality of the Soldier’s service, including the reason for separation and guidance set forth in this regulation, subject to the limitations under the various reasons for separations.  The quality of service will be determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty for military personnel as found in Army regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army.

	a.  An honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’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.

	b.  A general, under honorable conditions is appropriate to characterize if a Soldier’s service has been honest and faithful.  Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of the Soldier’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the Soldier’s military record.  When authorized, a characterization of under honorable conditions is awarded to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge action.  It appears that he abused drugs.  Accordingly, his chain of command presumably initiated action to separate him from the ARNG.  He was ultimately discharged from the ARNG with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed his administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  He was assigned the proper separation code and authority for separation.  

3.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service does not appear to have met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  In view of the foregoing evidence, he is not entitled to 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)                                         AR20140005510



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140005510



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1