IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  10 March 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140012950 


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 under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

* he had a very good record
* he was selected as Soldier of the Month at Fort Devens, Massachusetts, and competed for Soldier of the Year
* he had a spotless record until he was transferred from the 267th Signal Corps to the 270th Signal Corps where he was led the wrong way
* a review of his records will show nothing to warrant the actions taken
* he was promoted to specialist four in a very short amount of time and was a model troop
* he held a very high security clearance at the time
* he got into one argument with an E-6 and the next thing he knew he was being separated from the Army against his wishes
* he tried to fight the discharge at the time, but his company commander would not stop the action
* he wants to be made a whole person again before he passes from this world
* he has been a model citizen over the past 30 years and completed over 30,000 hours of community service
* he worked for the government on several projects and received numerous letters of appreciation
* he was presented with a Navy Seabee coin at Bethesda Naval Station for his work on the Wounded Warrior Project

3.  The applicant provides:

* a letter of appreciation
* three certificates of appreciation

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 25 June 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.

3.  On 8 November 1982, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for his drunk and disorderly conduct on 29 October 1982.

4.  On 3 March 1983, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for disorderly conduct on 27 February 1983.

5.  The applicant's records contain seven statements written between the months of September 1982 and February 1983, wherein noncommissioned officers counseled him for failing to complete assigned details at the appropriate time, speaking in a disrespectful tone, arguing, yelling profanities, making threatening statements, absenting himself from his place of duty, and fighting.

6.  On 15 March 1983, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against him due to a 
6-month span of training and suitability deficiencies that proved uncorrectable.

7.  On 5 April 1983, his commander notified him of initiation of action to separate him from the service for inefficiency, untimeliness, very poor work habits, continued violation of the UCMJ, and overall poor performance pursuant to the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13.

8.  On 5 April 1983, he acknowledged he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and waived representation by counsel.  He did not submit statements in his own behalf and acknowledged his understanding that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him.

9.  On 12 April 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, due to unsatisfactory performance with the issuance of a general discharge under honorable conditions.

10.  He was discharged accordingly on 25 April 1983.  He completed a total of 2 years, 10 months, and 1 day of creditable active military service.  No lost time is annotated on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

11.  The applicant provided a letter of appreciation and three certificates of appreciation attesting to his superb efforts, significant contributions, and exceptional support of various Base Realignment and Closure projects for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

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

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

	a.  Chapter 13, in effect at the time, provided for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when, in the commander's judgment, the individual would not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale; the service member would be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation would continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, was unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this chapter would be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that 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 request for an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge was carefully considered and determined to be without merit.

2.  His records reveal a history of disciplinary action that includes infractions resulting in NJP on two occasions as well as numerous documented instances of inefficiency, untimeliness, poor work habits, and misconduct.

3.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, due to unsatisfactory performance.  His disciplinary history demonstrated a trend of misconduct and unsatisfactory performance and clearly established that rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory Soldier.

4.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The character of his service clearly did not rise to the level of conduct and performance of duty commensurate with a fully honorable discharge.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for upgrading the applicant's 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 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)                                         AR20140012950



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140012950



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1