BOARD DATE:	  23 June 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140018188


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.  He states:

* he was retaliated against for wanting to advance to the officer ranks since he has a college degree and passed the Officer Candidate School (OCS) test
* his first sergeant (1SG) at the time was very much against him going to OCS
* he has been an outstanding citizen in his community in Dallas, TX, a member of the American Legion, and has been employed with the Nestle company for the past 8 years
* he participates at his church in various activities, feeds the hungry, and is a deacon

3.  He provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and college transcripts from Prairie View A & M University.

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 29 May 1990, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  After completing initial entry training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman.)

3.  A DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice) shows he received nonjudicial punishment on 29 May 1991 for failing to go at the time prescribed to his place of duty.

4.  The applicant's records are incomplete.  The available records show that on 
3 January 1992, the applicant requested a GD.  On 13 January 1992, the separation authority approved the command's recommendation for his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 12-12b, and directed he be issued a GD Certificate.

5.  His DD Form 214 shows:

	a.  He was discharged on 17 January 1992, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b (a pattern of misconduct).  His DD Form 214 further shows in:

* item 24 (Character of Service) - "UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS" (General)
* item 25 (Separation Authority) - "AR 635-200, Para 14-12b"
* item 26 (Separation Code) - "JKM"
* item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) - "MISCONDUCT-PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT"

	b.  He completed a total of 1 year, 7 months, and 19 days of net active service this period.

6.  His record does not show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a change in his character of service within its 15-year statute of limitations.  

7.  The applicant states he received retaliation from a 1SG for wanting to advance to the officer ranks due to having a college education.  However, he does not provide and his records do not contain documentation to support his claim.

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

   a.  Chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct), paragraph 14-12b, in effect at the time, states members are subject to separation under this provision when they have a pattern of misconduct involving:

* acts of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities
* conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline

   b.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests his GD be upgraded to an HD due to retaliation by his 1SG for wanting to become an officer by his 1SG.  However, his record does not support this implied contention, nor does he submit documentation to support his statement.

2.  His record shows he had previous misconduct which resulted in NJP.

3.  The applicant's complete discharge packet is not available for review.  Nonetheless, there is no evidence submitted by the applicant or from any other source which shows he was not properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.  The Board presumes regularity and that actions taken by the Army are administratively correct.  All evidence indicates the requirements of law and regulations were and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Absent any evidence to the contrary, regularity must be presumed.

4.  He offers his post-service conduct and achievements as evidence that he is now a productive member of society.  However, post-service conduct and achievements alone are not normally a sufficient basis for upgrading a discharge.

5.  Given the foregoing, the evidence shows the applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Accordingly, there is 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)                                         AR20140007657



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140018188



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1