IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 9 June 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140018318
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 that his discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states he completed his advanced individual training as a distinguished honor graduate. He was a decorated Soldier. Everything was going great and he wanted to make the Army his career. Then his wife sneaked away in the middle of the night and flew to Virginia. She called him the next morning and told him she was giving his first born son up for adoption. She also told him that the child was not his. He started lashing out and looked for a release. He began under-age drinking and tested positive on a urinalysis. This just added to his problems. One day he was coming down the barracks steps and saw the first sergeant yelling at his wife. He stepped in and told the first sergeant he had no right to yell at his wife. His job was to protect and serve. If he had a problem with his wife, he should come to him. They argued back and forth and he was told to be at ease. He was angry and hot headed. He tried to walk away but was called back and told he was getting nonjudicial punishment. He had a hearing in front of the battery commander. He tried to explain the whole story to the commander but he would not hear his side. The first sergeant did not get into any trouble. The applicant has regretted his decisions ever since. If he had done things differently, he would now be retired from the Army.
3. The applicant provides copies of:
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* A two-page statement, signed and dated 1 October 2014
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 applicants 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 applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. On 3 December 1993, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed training as a Vulcan crewman. He was subsequently assigned for duty at Fort Riley, Kansas.
3. The applicant was counseled as indicated below:
* 1 March 1995: failure to report for work
* 3 March 1995: failure to report
* 6 March 1995: charged with under-age drinking
* 7 April 1995: Failed to report for morning formation
* 6 May 1995: overdose of no-doz
* 16 May 1995: arrested for spouse abuse
* 17 May 1995: Missed two appointments with social services and trouble with sheriffs department
* 22 May 1995: missed appointment with marriage counselor
* 24 May 1995: Bar to reenlistment initiated
4. The applicant accepted the following nonjudicial punishments (NJPs):
* 20 July 1995: for willfully disobeying a lawful command from a noncommissioned officer (NCO)
* 29 August 1995: for wrongful use of cocaine
5. On 3 August 1995, the commander notified the applicant of his intention to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. The commander stated that the applicant had disobeyed NCOs, had failed to report, had abused his spouse, and drank alcohol while under the legal age. He indicated he was recommending an honorable characterization of service.
6. On 3 August 1995, the applicants commander recommended that he be separated from the service under the provisions discussed above and for the same reasons mentioned.
7. On 4 August 1995, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification concerning his administrative separation. He had consulted with legal counsel, and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf and to waive representation in the matter.
8. On 11 August 1995, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that he be issued a General, Under Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.
9. Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 7 September 1995. He had completed a total of 1 year, 9 months, and 5 days of creditable active duty service.
10. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.
11. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
a. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commanders judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.
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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable because he had completed his advanced individual training as a distinguished honor graduate; was a decorated Soldier; and wanted to make the Army his career.
2. The applicants administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
4. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was counseled numerous times about his performance and misconduct. He twice received NJP. He has not offered any documentary evidence or argument that sufficiently overcomes his misconduct.
5. The evidence states that the applicant had missed social services appointments and a marriage counseling appointment. This indicates that the command had taken appropriate action to help the applicant with his problems. Apparently, he could not, or would not cooperate or take advantage of the available help.
6. Based on the applicant's record of indiscipline, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel. Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.
7. There is no evidence of error or injustice in this case. Accordingly, the applicant's request should be denied.
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) AR20110020309
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140018318
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020564
The 1SG then instructed the applicant several times to get to his quarters now. On 25 June 2009, the separation authority, approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be discharge with a general discharge. With respect to a medical discharge, there is no evidence in his records which shows he was physically or mentally unfit at the time of his discharge.
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00979
ND03-00979 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030513. The next day upon arrival on board I was taken to medical and on the Portsmouth Naval Hospital where I stayed for a week and was given a psychological evaluation contracted for safety and was sent back fit for full duty to my command with the recommendation of alcohol rehabilitation Level 3. The summary of service clearly documents that alcohol rehabilitation failure was the reason the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014444
The applicant requests his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He acknowledged he understood that if he received a discharge/character of service which is less than honorable, he may make application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or this Board for upgrading. Although an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate for the authority and reason for his discharge, it appears the separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009080
She went back to the kitchen and told [another female Soldier] what had happened. The IO recommended the command take adverse action against the applicant for: * Violation of the Army's policy on sexual harassment * Dereliction of duties as charge of quarters * Maltreatment of Soldiers * Assault of a female Soldier 12. The record further shows: a. he did not demand trial by court-martial; b. he requested a closed hearing; c. he did not offer any matters in defense, extenuation, and/or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011118
c. A CID Form 94 (Agent's Investigation Report), dated 12 January 2012, which shows that while conducting a search of the applicant's residence, his wife and mother-in-law returned home from visiting him at the hospital and they both were irate toward all law enforcement officers (LEO) on scene. She stated she should have let him kill everyone in that building, and when he returned home from the hospital, she was not going to stop him again. On 17 August 2012, the applicant was informed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005350
COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. She was given 15 Soldiers under her command. A DA Form 2823, dated 13 September 2007, shows the applicant's 1SG stated that on 12 September 2007, while counseling the applicant, she became disrespectful in her mannerisms.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | AR20060016903C071029
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. A memorandum for personnel record that was completed by the applicant's commanding officer on 10 September 1990 indicates that he was counseled for poor duty performance and personal problems that resulted in reported abuse cases; and that he was given a 30-day notice in which he would be evaluated for any reoccurring incidents or problems. A review of the available records fail to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001134
The applicant requests correction of his military records by upgrading his general discharge to an honorable discharge. On 20 May 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, and directed the applicant be furnished a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate). Accordingly, on 28 May 1982, the applicant was discharged.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008485
On 31 August 1989, the applicant's company commander initiated action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11 (Entry Level Performance and Conduct). Personnel who enlisted in the RA are considered to be in an entry-level status if, before the date of the initiation of separation action, they have completed no more than 180 days of continuous active duty. c. Therefore, the evidence of record shows the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004003
On 18 April 1980, his command initiated separation action under the provisions of paragraph 5-31, Army Regulation 635-200 for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. On 21 April 1980, the separation authority directed the applicant be discharged with a GD Certificate within 3 days. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.