IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  16 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140015186 


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 (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states he would like to have his discharge upgraded in order to see if he would be eligible for any benefits. 

3.  The applicant does not provide any additional documents. 

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 30 November 1989.  After completing initial entry training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 13M (Multiple Launch Rocket System Crewmember).  The highest rank he attained was specialist/E-4.    

3.  A memorandum, subject:  Notification of Dishonored Checks, dated              12 June 1992 stated he would have his check-cashing privileges suspended if the check(s) and fees were not paid in full within 15 calendar days.

4.  He was counseled on the following dates:

* 16 June 1992 for writing back checks
* 14 August 1992 for failure to repair
* 4 September 1992 for failure to make formation and failing promotion board
* 6 October 1992 for writing bad checks
* 26 February 1993 for writing bad checks

5.  On 2 November 1992, he was issued a DA Form 4126-R (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate) for:  writing bad checks, being delinquent in paying his debts, missing formation, and failing the sergeant/E-5 promotion board  

6.  On 17 May 1993, his company commander notified him he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, for serious misconduct.  The applicant's company commander stated the reason for the proposed action was for writing bad checks.  His commander advised him of his rights.  

7.  On 18 May 1993, he consulted with counsel who advised him of the basis for his contemplated separation and its effects, of the rights available to him, and of the effect of a waiver of his rights.  

8.  After consulting with counsel, he indicated he would not submit statements in his own behalf, and he acknowledged that he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a GD were to be issued to him. 

9.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, and directed that the applicant be issued a GD Certificate.  On 3 June 1993, he was discharged in accordance with the separation authority's decision.  He completed 3 years, 6 months and 4 days of net active service this period.  

10.  There is no evidence indicating he submitted a request to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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 minor disciplinary infractions (a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline), commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  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 GD if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record.  Only a general court-martial convening authority may approve an HD or delegate approval authority for an HD under this provision of regulation.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an HD 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for medical benefits.

2.  The evidence of record does not support his request for an upgrade of his GD.

3.  The record shows he was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the applicable regulations, that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and that his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The record supports the reason and authority for his discharge.

4.  Due to his pattern of misconduct, his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Considering all the facts of this case, his GD was appropriate.  The available evidence is an insufficient basis upon which to grant 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)                                         AR20140015186



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140015186



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1