IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	 6 October 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150003525 


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 (under honorable conditions) discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he served his entire time.  He knows he messed up but he served his time like a real Soldier.

3.  The applicant provides no supporting documentation.

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 served on active duty from 17 August 1995 through 17 August 1999 in military occupational specialty 31U (Signal Support Systems Operator).
3.  The applicant received nonjudicial punishment, under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 23 November 1998, for theft of concert tickets (valued in excess of $150) from a fellow Soldier.

4.  The available records includes negative counseling statements for unbecoming behavior and failure to pay just debts on three occasions. 

5.  The applicant’s record also includes evidence that shows his chain of command was notified on numerous occasions that the applicant’s checks were returned due to insufficient funds, he had delinquent payments, and/or defaulted on payments.  

6.  On 18 August 1998 a summary court-martial convicted the applicant of seven specifications of theft of money from a fellow Soldier and/or Fort Hood National Bank (totaling approximately $298) and theft of a fellow Soldier's car.  He was sentenced to confinement for 10 days, reduction in rank to private/E-1, and a forfeiture of $617 pay.

7.  On 28 April 1999 the applicant's unit commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c.

8.  On 11 May 1999 the applicant acknowledged he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated separation and its effects, the rights available to him, and of a waiver of his rights.  He also requested further counsel, and indicated he would submit a statement on his own behalf.  However, no statement is in the available record.

9.  On 1 June 1999 the discharge authority waived further rehabilitation and counseling and approved the applicant’s discharge with the issuance of a GD. 

10.  The DD Form 214 shows –

* the rank and grade of private/E-1
* the Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge With Rifle Bar 
* Type Of Separation – Release From Active Duty
* Character Of Service – Under Honorable Conditions (General)
* Narrative Reason For Separation – Misconduct

11.  On 7 September 1999 Headquarters III Corps requested that the applicant's DD Form 214 be corrected to show he was discharged not released from active duty.  There is no evidence that this request was acted upon. 

12.  On 18 August 2011 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge and did not deem it appropriate to change his narrative reason for discharge.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It provides the following:

	a.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty. 

	b.  A general discharge is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge.

	c.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specifically paragraph 14-12c is to be used for the commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities or other actions that a punitive discharge is authorized under the UCMJ.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or the member is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's history of misconduct spans more than half of his period of service.  

2.  The applicant's misconduct includes a history of not paying his debts and theft of fellow Soldiers? property, to include a car.  This misconduct could have resulted in a punitive discharge and clearly does not meet the standards for an honorable discharge.

3.  His discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of his discharge is commensurate with his overall record of military service. 

4.  The applicant has not provided and his record does not contain any evidence or mitigating factors that warrant granting 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)                                         AR20150003525



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150003525



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1