IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 6 October 2015
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003304
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 that his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states that he is a hard worker, devoted father, and a creditable and respected individual in his community.
3. The applicant provides three character references.
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 24 January 1991 and completed training as a medical specialist. The highest rank/grade he attained during his period of service was specialist/ E-4.
3. He received nonjudicial punishment on 10 February 1993 for willfully disobeying a lawful command.
4. On 24 May 1993, the applicant's company commander informed him he was initiating action to separate him for a pattern of misconduct with a general discharge under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b. The reasons cited were his bar to reenlistment, Summarized Article 15 for disobeying an officer, Field Grade Article 15 for the wrongful possession of another Soldiers identification card, and counseling for indebtedness and failure to return property.
5. On the same day, he acknowledged receipt of notification of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him and of the rights available to him, including his right to consult with counsel prior to submitting his election of rights.
6. He consulted with counsel, who advised him of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, the rights available to him, and the effect of a waiver of his rights. He acknowledged he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued to him. He waived his rights and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
7. On 14 June 1993, the separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct, and directed the issuance of a general discharge. On 18 June 1993, the applicant was discharged accordingly. He had completed a total of 2 years,
4 months, and 25 days of creditable active duty service.
8. There is no indication that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
9. He provides three character references that state the applicant is a trustworthy, straightforward, truthful, hardworking, and loyal person.
10. 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, commission of a serious offense that could result in a punitive discharge, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence 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.
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 members 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. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for an upgrade of his general under honorable conditions discharge.
2. His post-service achievements are not in question; however, the evidence of record shows the applicant was barred from reenlistment and he accepted NJP on two occasions. Considering all the facts in this case, his general discharge was appropriate. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 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) AR20150003304
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003304
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012746
The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge (GD). Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states a GD is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to a GD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003537
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show something other than "misconduct." The applicant states, in effect: a. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013335
On 21 January 1993, the applicant's commander recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. Appropriate authority determined that the applicant's physical disability was not the cause of his misconduct. _______ _ 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021324
The applicant's immediate commander notified him on 22 March 1994 of his intent to initiate separation action against the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct pattern of misconduct. The applicant's immediate commander recommended his separation from the Army on 22 March 1994, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000598
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). In his election, he acknowledged that because he had less than 6 years service, he was not entitled to have his case heard by an administrative separation board unless he was being considered for an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. The separation authority may issue an HD or GD if warranted by the overall record of service; however, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020189
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 12 March 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence determined the applicant had been properly and equitably discharged and voted to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge and or a change in the narrative reason for separation. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100020189 3 ARMY BOARD FOR...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014565
The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge, removal of the narrative reason for separation, change of his reentry eligibility (RE) code to allow him to reenter military service, and entitlement to his educational benefits. The evidence of record shows the applicant was recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for patterns of misconduct with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. By...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004629
On 28 May 1985, the separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 12-14b for misconduct - pattern of misconduct and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Based on his overall record, the applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018037
On 9 May 2007, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct pattern of misconduct. On 9 August 2007, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of misconduct pattern of misconduct with an under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010021
On 15 December 1983, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations) for misconduct pattern of misconduct. Subsequent to the applicant's acknowledgement, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200 due to misconduct pattern of misconduct. Consistent with the chain...