Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002569
Original file (20150002569.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  8 OCTOBER 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150002569 


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, in effect, an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

* his motor pool sergeant in Germany would spit in his face every time he said "private"
* he asked the sergeant to please stop spitting in his face
* he got in trouble and was separated with a general discharge
* he served his country, but has no veterans' benefits (presumed to mean Department of Veterans Affairs benefits)

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 13 March 1986 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 44B (metal worker).

3.  He was counseled for possession of a lock-blade knife and unsatisfactory performance.

4.  Between May 1986 and May 1987, nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice was imposed against him on four occasions for:

* assaulting a private by striking him with his fist
* failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (four specifications) and disobeying a lawful order
* failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (two specifications)
* leaving his appointed place of duty without authority (two specifications), breaking restriction, and altering a public record

5.  On 13 April 1987, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against him.

6.  On 2 May 1987, he was notified of his pending separation for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13.  His unit commander specified the following reasons for the proposed action:

* he demonstrated poor duty performance as evidenced by his derogatory counseling statements and Article 15s
* he had no respect for authority and no sense of responsibility
* he had not responded to any rehabilitative attempts

7.  On 6 May 1987, he consulted with counsel, waived his rights, and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  On 12 May 1987, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

9.  On 28 May 1987, he was discharged under honorable conditions (general) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He completed a total of 1 year, 2 months, and 16 days of creditable active service.

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

REFERENCES:

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for the administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 13, in effect at the time, provided for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when, in the commander's judgment, the individual would not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale; the service member would be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation would continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, was unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this chapter would be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

	b.  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:

1.  The applicant contends he has no veterans' benefits.  However, a discharge is not changed for the purpose of qualifying an applicant for VA benefits.  Each request is individually considered based on the evidence presented.

2.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement wherein he could have voiced his concerns; however, he elected not to do so.

3.  The applicant's record of service included adverse counseling statements, a bar to reenlistment, and four nonjudicial punishments.  His quality of service was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant a fully honorable discharge.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150002569



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


0Enclosure 2

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150002569



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2012 | 20120019836

    Original file (20120019836.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 May 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120019836 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 1 December 1987, the applicant was notified that he was being considered for separation with a general discharge for unsatisfactory performance. On 21 December 1987, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 13, with a general discharge for unsatisfactory performance.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010742

    Original file (20090010742.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The separation authority waived any rehabilitation requirements, approved the separation, and directed a general discharge. On 29 May 1987, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010319

    Original file (20120010319.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On one occasion when his platoon sergeant was visiting him in his room he was showing him pictures of his family. His commander indicated the reasons for his proposed action were because of the applicant's unsatisfactory performance, based on his poor counseling statements and four instances of nonjudicial punishment. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007436

    Original file (20120007436.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. However, there is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. _______ _ 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019517

    Original file (20120019517.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect: a. his general discharge be upgraded to honorable; b. his rank/pay grade be restored to specialist four (SP4)/E-4; c. the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar be added to his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); and d. completion of the pre-Ranger Course be added to his DD Form 214. There is no evidence that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008962

    Original file (20100008962.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Block 24 (Character of Service) of the DD Form 214 issued to her at the time shows that she received an "Under Honorable Conditions" characterization of service. Block 25 (Separation Authority) shows that she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. There is no evidence in the available record that indicates she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013875

    Original file (20090013875.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 November 1987, the applicant’s commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On 17 November 1987, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a general discharge under honorable conditions. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013973

    Original file (20090013973.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of the character of service of his general under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant contends his general under honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge because he was young and foolish; he believed that his discharge would be automatically changed to an honorable discharge six months after his separation from the Army; and he would like to qualify for government benefits. In addition,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001325

    Original file (20140001325.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 July 1987, he was notified by his immediate commander that discharge action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence of record confirms the applicant demonstrated he could not or would not meet...