IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE: 3 December 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140007223 


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 to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he is changing his career from public safety officer to long shoreman and needs his discharge upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant did not provide any 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.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 March 1982.  He held military occupational specialty 11H (Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons Infantryman).  


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

	a.  item 5 (Overseas Service) he served in Germany from 26 June 1982 through 17 June 1985;

	b.  item 9 (Awards, Decorations, and Campaigns), he was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Army Achievement Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar; and

	c.  item 18 (Appointments and Reductions), the highest rank/grade he attained was corporal/E-4.

4.  Between November 1985 and August 1987 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for offenses of repeated absences from his place of duty, failing to secure his weapon, willful disobedience, and assault.

5.  On 3 October 1987, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation for a pattern of misconduct.  He recommended the applicant receive a general discharge.

6.  On 9 October 1987, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification action, consulted with counsel, and he indicated he would submit a statement on his own behalf.  Any statement he may have submitted is not available for review.

7.  The applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, Patterns of Misconduct.  The commander stated the applicant's conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  He indicated the applicant had received numerous negative counseling's in addition to the five NJP's.

8.  The applicant's battalion commander recommended approval of the discharge and that the applicant's service be characterized as general under honorable conditions.

9.  On 30 October 1987, the applicant was accordingly discharged.  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 (General).  He had completed a total of 5 years, 7 months, and 26 days of creditable active duty service.

10.  On 10 September 2008, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request 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 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 (UOTHC) 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's acceptance of several NJP's and negative counseling's established a pattern of misconduct.  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.  The governing regulation specifies that a UOTHC discharge is considered normal.  Therefore, the fact that the applicant received a general discharge is considered adequate recognition of the mitigation arising from his service.

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

4.  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)                                         AR20140007223



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1