IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    3 December 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150000784 


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 correction of his military records to show his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.
   
2.  The applicant states he was very young and inexperienced with life.  There was a death in his family that was very difficult for him to handle.  The death was very personal because he died from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).  At the time there was not much information or support for families for this type of death.  He contends that today he is not the same bad-behavior person he once was.  He has changed and continues to change.

3.  The applicant provides a letter from Eva’s Village, dated 18 November 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 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 17 November 1981, the applicant, at 21 years of age, enlisted in the Regular Army.

   a.  On or about 3 February 1982, he completed his initial training as a clerk typist.
   
   b.  On or about 14 May 1982, he was assigned for duty with the 128th Combat Support Hospital located in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG).
   
   c.  On 8 August 1983, he was advanced to specialist four, pay grade E-4.
   
	d.  On 4 November 1983, he departed the FRG for duty with the 101st Airborne Division located at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

3.  In 1985, the applicant reenlisted with the option for training as a medical supply specialist at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.  He was subsequently assigned to Fort Lee, Virginia.

4.  On 22 January 1986, charges were preferred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for violation of:

   a.  Article 86, four specifications, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 13 November, 2 and 31 December 1985; and 16 January 1986; and
   
   b.  Article 112a for the wrongful use of marijuana and cocaine between 
10 September and 9 October 1985.

5.  On 28 January 1986, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the UCMJ, and that he could receive an UOTHC discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, and that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an UOTHC discharge.

6.  On 30 January 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued a DD Form 794A (UOTHC Discharge Certificate).  On 18 February 1986, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He had completed a total of 4 years, 3 months and 2 days of creditable active duty service.

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

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations):

	a.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

	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.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

9.  The letter from Eva’s Village, dated 18 November 2014, as provided by the applicant states that he entered the clinical program in November 1997.  He was required to attend a minimum of three meetings per week and to be present in group therapy sessions, didactic/education classes and individual counseling sessions on a weekly basis.  The clinic administered urine and breathalyzer tests regularly and at random.  All of the applicant’s screenings were negative for psychoactive substances.  A full intake and assessment was completed on the applicant and an individualized and negotiated treatment plan was developed.  He successfully completed the program in November 1998.  He has returned to Eva’s Village on many occasions as an alumnus to visit with staff and discuss his personal and professional experiences since completing treatment.  The author is impressed with the applicant’s strong commitment to his recovery and is proud of his progress in both his personal and professional life.  The applicant also has worked for Eva’s Village as a part-time counselor aide for a period of 5 years and continues to be involved in their alumni association.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected to show his UOTHC discharge upgraded to general, under honorable conditions because he was very young and inexperienced with life at the time

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was 21 years of age when he enlisted.  He satisfactorily completed training, attained the rank of specialist four, was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal, and served for about 4 years before any negative incidents were documented.  His satisfactory performance demonstrates his capacity to serve and shows that he was neither too young nor immature.

4.  The applicant’s good post-service conduct and successful rehabilitation is noted.  However, it does not sufficiently mitigate his repeated acts of indiscipline during his military service.

5.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel.  This misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory. Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.

6.  In view of the foregoing, 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)                                         AR20150000784



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1