IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 6 November 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140006036 


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 general discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he is proud of the good years that he served his country. He realizes he made some mistakes as a young man.  He had some family problems toward the end of his service, and as an immature young man he didn't know how to handle them.  He is now a productive citizen, a Notary for the State of South Carolina, and a minister.  He wants to be proud with an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant did not provide any documentation in support of his request.

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 12 February 1985.  He held military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewman).

3.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows in:

	a.  Item 5 (Oversea Service) he served in Germany from 10 February 1988 through 19 August 1991; 

	b.  item 9 (Awards, Decorations, and Campaigns), he was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon, Army Achievement Medal (4 Awards), Driver and Mechanic Badge with Driver-T Bar, National Defense Service Medal, Overseas Service Ribbon, Army Good Conduct Medal, Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar, and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar; and

	c.  item 18 (Appointments and Reductions), the highest rank/grade he attained was sergeant (SGT)/E-5.

4.  The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on:

* 27 July 1988 for striking B------- B------ in the face with an open hand
* 7 November 1990, while a SGT, for assaulting a noncommissioned officer
* 7 March 1991, while a SGT, for being absent without leave (AWOL)

5.  On 25 June 1991, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action for misconduct by commission of a serious offense under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12(c).  The commander stated the applicant had received two field grade NJPs, both for assault, a summarized NJP, and been counseled for assault.  The applicant's actions had made him a threat to the unit's ability to complete its mission.

6.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification action and consulted with counsel.  He indicated he would not submit a statement in his own behalf, waived his right to have his case considered by a board of officers, waived his right to a personal appearance before a board of officers, and waived his right to counsel contingent upon receipt of a general discharge.

7.  The applicant's battalion commander recommended the applicant receive a general discharge.

8.  On 15 July 1991, the separation authority approved the separation and directed a general discharge.  On 5 August 1991, the applicant was accordingly discharged.

9.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged for misconduct with his service characterized as under honorable conditions.  He had completed 6 years, 5 months, and 24 days of creditable active duty service.

10.  There is no available evidence showing he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. 

11.  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 commission of a serious offense.  A serious offense is one which warrants separation and for which the individual could receive a puntitive discharge at a trial by court-martial.   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 evidence of record shows the applicant committed multiple serious offenses.  Accordingly, his commander initiated separation action against him.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant appear to have been fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting 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 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)                                         AR20120009372



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140006036



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1