Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001582
Original file (20150001582.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	 

		BOARD DATE:	  17 September 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150001582 


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 discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  he was just 18 years old and right out of high school when he volunteered to join the Army and serve his country;

	b.  he wanted to make his Army service a career but his commander had different plans;

	c.  he was assigned to the mess hall at Fort Meade where he tried to get the hang of cooking but could not do so, for so many people;

	d.  he sought a transfer and/or reclassification to the infantry branch as a grunt, but his commander refused his request and instead discharged him from the Army under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 632-200 (Enlisted Personnel – Administrative Separations), 19 to 20 days prior to his expiration term of service (ETS);

	e.  he recently learned he was not eligible for medical benefits when he applied to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) after he became disabled; and

	f.  he is in desperate need of help and thankful for any help given.
3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and extracts of multiple official military personnel file (OMPF) 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 (RA) on 21 July 1981.  Upon completion of his initial entry training, he was awarded military occupational specialty “94B” (Cook) and assigned to Fort Meade, Maryland.

3.  His record reveals a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on:

* 14 September 1981, for stealing another’s checkbook on 15 August 1981
* 2 May 1983, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 25 April 1983
* 18 May 1983, for assault upon a civilian by striking him in the face with his closed fist and striking him upon his head with a metal flashlight with a means likely to produce grievous bodily harm

4.  On 23 June 1983, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation that showed the following:

* his behavior and thought content were normal
* he was fully alert and oriented
* his mood was unremarkable
* his thinking process was clear
* his memory was level
* he was mentally responsible
* he met retention requirements
* he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in separation proceedings.

6.  On 12 May 1983, the unit commander notified the applicant he was initiating action to separate him for unsatisfactory performance with a GD.  The unit commander cited the applicant's apathy evidenced by his failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and his frequent commissions of petty offenses as the basis for his separation action.

7.  The unit commander further notified the applicant of his rights to:

* representation at any hearing by a duly appointed legally qualified military counsel of his choice if reasonably available or civilian counsel retained at his own expense
* submit a statement on his own behalf
* waive his rights

8.  The unit commander advised the applicant that failure to invoke any of his rights would not affect the validity of the elimination proceedings.  On 27 May 1983, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the elimination action.

9.  The applicant’s military record does not include his election of rights or any evidence showing he consulted with legal counsel.

10.  On 28 June 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation action, waived further rehabilitation requirements, and directed the applicant receive a GD Certificate.

11.  Accordingly, on 1 July 1993, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 with a GD.  He completed 1 year, 11 months, and 11 days of creditable active service.  The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he was discharged by reason of unsatisfactory performance. 

12.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for the administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 provided for separation 
due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander's judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation would be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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 or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  While the available evidence does not show the applicant consulted with counsel, he acknowledged that he was notified of his right to military counsel or civilian counsel at his own expense.  He was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and of the rights available to him.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  Further, the applicant's record includes three NJP actions for offenses of theft, failure to report to duty at the appointed time, and grievous assault.  Clearly, the applicant's misconduct diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  His service did not support the issuance of an HD by the separation authority at the time of discharge and it does not support an upgrade now.

3.  In view of the forgoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant’s 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)                                         AR20150001582



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150001582



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017595

    Original file (20090017595.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows the applicant enlisted and entered active duty in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 2 years on 30 September 1971 and he was honorably discharged on 30 July 1973 to immediately reenlist. In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the ABCMR is not empowered to set aside a conviction. A member will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002160

    Original file (20130002160.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 June 1983, the separation authority waived rehabilitation and counseling and directed the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with service characterized as general under honorable conditions. His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Although he provided a certificate which shows he was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018097

    Original file (20070018097.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 August 1984, the discharge authority approved the separation action, waived the rehabilitation requirements, and directed the applicant receive a GD. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006046

    Original file (20080006046.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant essentially states that he was never assigned to rehabilitation for his alcohol abuse, and requests that his records be reviewed and that his characterization of service shown on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed from under honorable conditions to honorable. The applicant's military records contained a DA Form 4465 (Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program [ADAPCP] Client Intake Record which essentially shows that he...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007872

    Original file (20120007872.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable or a general discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100047C070208

    Original file (2004100047C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. It further states that members who have failed to meet body fat standards after applying the procedures in AR 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program) will be separated under this chapter. The evidence of record includes Army Weight Control Program documents that confirm the applicant was provided counseling and ample opportunity over several months to conform to Army weight control standards.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020987

    Original file (20140020987.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was accordingly discharged on 19 October 1983. There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of his discharge processing within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008480

    Original file (20140008480.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if the discharge request were approved, he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013680

    Original file (20120013680.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's military record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA), in pay grade E-1, on 14 June 1978. On 7 May 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. He provided no evidence or argument to show his discharge should be upgraded and his military record contains no evidence which would entitle him to an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014427

    Original file (20130014427.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant pled not guilty to the charges and was found guilty of all Specifications of Charge 1 and not guilty of both Specifications of Charge II. The remaining findings of guilty and the approved sentence to a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for 4 months, and a forfeiture of $250 pay for 4 months as adjudged on 16 February 1983 were affirmed. Therefore, clemency in the form of an honorable or general discharge is not warranted in this case.