IN THE CASE OF:	 

		BOARD DATE:	  16 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140015599 


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 under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

* he was very young and had a drug addiction
* his father helped him with his addiction after his discharge
* he has worked very hard over the years since his discharge and has been blessed with a beautiful family and a career in which he has reached a high management position in his current company
* in order to continue he must remove this one black mark from his record
* he requests the Board not hold him accountable for mistakes he made while a minor

3.  The applicant provides a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and his civilian résumé.

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 24 March 1980 at age 17.  After completing one station unit training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 11H (Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons Crewman).  The highest rank/grade held was private first class (PFC)/E-3.

3.  His records show he received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on one occasion:

* on 20 May 1981, for one specification of failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; punishment included reduction in rank from PFC to private/E-2 (suspended), as well as a forfeiture of pay and extra duty
* on 12 June 1981, the suspension of the rank reduction was vacated

4.  The applicant’s discharge packet is not available.  However, there is sufficient evidence for a fair and impartial review.  His DD Form 214 shows:

	a.  He was discharged on 19 January 1982, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-33b(2) (patterns of misconduct - an established pattern of shirking).  

	b.  The narrative reason for separation states misconduct [with an] established pattern of shirking.  The characterization of service is under other than honorable conditions.  

	c.  He completed a total of 1 year, 9 months, and 25 days of net creditable active military service with one day of lost time.

	d.  He was awarded or authorized the:

* Army Service Ribbon
* Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar 
* Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar
* Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Missile Bar (Tow Gunner)

5.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

6.  The applicant provides his civilian résumé which essentially shows:

* his current position is as a Senior Superintendent - Safety Coordinator
* he has 29 years of experience in the commercial construction industry
* his skills include pre-construction planning, site-specific safety planning, and on-site project management
* he cites selected projects which show the breadth of his experience in his industry 

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

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is given when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance.  

   b.  Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

	c.  Chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct), Section V (Other Acts or Patterns of Misconduct) Paragraph 14-33b(2), in effect at the time, states members are subject to separation when they have an established pattern of shirking.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests his under other than honorable discharge be upgraded to honorable.  His evidence submitted in support of his request is a self-authored civilian resume which shows he has achieved success since his discharge.  He does not address, however, the misconduct which led to his separation beyond suggesting what occurred was the result of his immaturity and his addiction to drugs.  While his post-service accomplishments are noteworthy, they do not serve to offset the characterization of service he received.

2.  The applicant's discharge packet is not available for review.  Nonetheless, he acknowledges his misconduct was related to a drug addition and, based upon the provision cited for separation, an established pattern of shirking led to him receiving an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  There is no evidence the applicant was not properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time and that all requirements of law and regulations were not met or that the rights of the applicant were not fully protected throughout the separation process.  Absent such evidence, regularity must be presumed in this case.

3.  Records show the applicant was 17 years of age at the time of his enlistment and age 19 at the time of his discharge.  There is no evidence indicating he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.

4.  Based upon the foregoing, the applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  His misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Accordingly, there is an insufficient basis upon which to grant the applicant's request for 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)                                         AR20140015599



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140015599



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1