IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  17 September 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150001801 


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.  The applicant states he is a disabled veteran who served his country.  At the time of his discharge his youthfulness got the better of him and he opted out early.  He has a job working to help veterans.  He serves them daily and as a result he would like to have his discharge upgraded. 

3.  The applicant does not provide any additional 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 on 31 August 1990.  After completing initial entry training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 71L (Administrative Specialist).  The highest rank he attained was private first class/E-3.    

3.  The available evidence indicates he received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on the following occasions:
 
* on 8 August 1991 for:

* failing to go to his appointed place of duty
* being derelict in the performance of duties

* on 21 August 1991 for writing 26 bad checks

4.  On 6 September 1991, his company commander notified him he had recommended action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14.  He stated the reason for the action was the commission of a serious offense, uttering bad checks.  He was advised of his rights and acknowledged receipt of the separation notification letter.

5.  After consulting with counsel, he indicated he would not submit statements in his own behalf, and he acknowledged that he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a GD were to be issued to him. 

6.  An authorized official approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, and directed that he be issued a GD Certificate.  On 23 October 1991, he was discharged in accordance with the authorized official’s decision.  He completed 1 year, 1 month and 24 days of net active service this period.  

7.  There is no evidence indicating he submitted a request to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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

	a.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions (a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline), commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a GD if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record.  Only a general court-martial convening authority may approve an HD or delegate approval authority for an HD under this provision of regulation.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an HD 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  His contention that he was young at the time of his discharge is noted; however, there is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.

2.  The record shows he was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the applicable regulations, that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and that his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The record supports the reason and authority for his discharge.

3.  Due to his pattern of misconduct, his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Considering all the facts of this case, his GD was appropriate.  The available evidence is an insufficient basis upon which to grant the 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)                                         AR20150001801





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150001801



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1