IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  8 October 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150002510 


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 his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states his GD has hindered him from "paying it forward."  He has started a small business geared toward helping veterans and the assistance he needs is hindered by his GD.  At the time of his discharge there was no diagnosis or treatment for the type of illness he has.  He has received a proper diagnosis and treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and wants to give back to other veterans.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), Bachelor of Science in Business, Master of Business Administration degree, Certificate for Completion of Certified Peer Support Specialist Training, and a business license.

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 1 May 1979 and reenlisted on 17 April 1983 and on 6 November 1986.  He held military occupational specialty 63B (Light Wheel Vehicle and Power Generator Mechanic).

3.  The applicant’s record includes a negative general counseling statement for being late for a morning muster due to excessive alcohol consumption.  In the counseling statement it was noted the applicant's performance was considered unsatisfactory.

4.  He received nonjudicial punishment as follows on –

* 8 July 1987 for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 – 24 June 1987
* 22 July 1987 for being AWOL from 2 to 21 July 1987

5.  On 28 July 1987 the applicant’s immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for misconduct -commission of a serious offense with a GD.  The commander cited the above periods of AWOL as the bases for the recommendation.  He was advised of his rights.

6.  On 28 July 1987 the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to separate him.  He indicated he did not desire to consult with counsel.  He desired to submit statements in his own behalf and he did not desire a hearing before an administrative separation board.  The available evidence does not contain any statements submitted in behalf of the applicant.

7.  His command initiated separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  On 21 September 1987 the discharge authority waived a rehabilitative transfer and approved the applicant’s discharge with the issuance of a GD.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant was issued a GD on 24 September 1987.  His DD Form 214 shows he completed 8 years, 2 months, and 6 days of creditable active service with three periods of lost time from 2 - 20 July 1987, 5 - 23 June 1987, and 29 July - 8 September 1987.  His awards are shown as the Army Service Ribbon, Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, Driver and Mechanic Badge, Overseas Service Ribbon, and Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award).
9.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board in February 2013, after that boards 15 year statute of limitations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It provides the following:

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a states that an HD is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.  

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b states that a GD is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an HD. 

   c.  Chapter 14, establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absences without leave.  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 considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant appears to have had a good career record until 1987.  Then his performance appears to have taken a serious downward turn and he had three periods of lost time and was issued a GD.  

2.  His post service educational achievements are noted, but they are not so meritorious as to outweigh his misconduct.

3.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  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.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

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)                                         AR20150002510



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150002510



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1