IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 September 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080006317 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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states he was 17 years old and very immature when he enlisted. Since his discharge he has been diagnosed with alcoholism, being bi-polar, and being borderline paranoid schizophrenic. He contends that, with these conditions, he had no chance of surviving a career of any kind, especially a structured military career. The applicant adds that he has now completed a drug treatment program and is taking medication for his antisocial disorders. 3. The applicant does not provide any additional documentation in support of his request. 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’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 September 1983 and was awarded the military occupational specialty of bridge crewman. 3. On 31 May 1985, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend his discharge for a pattern of misconduct, and of his rights in conjunction with that recommendation. The stated reasons for the recommendation were for his pattern of misconduct, as documented by his several records of counseling for missing formation, being absent from duty, and receiving a traffic citation; being arrested for his involvement in a mutual affray and for being drunk in public; being arrested for being drunk and disorderly in the barracks; and being given nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, failure to obey a lawful order, assault, and drunk and disorderly in the barracks. 4. The applicant waived his rights. 5. The applicant was given a separation physical examination and was determined to be medically qualified for separation. He was given a mental status evaluation and found to have no significant mental defects. 6. The applicant’s commander then forwarded his recommendation to discharge the applicant. That recommendation was approved by the appropriate authority and the applicant was discharged UOTHC on 25 July 1985. 7. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s repeated acts of serious misconduct certainly warranted him being processed for misconduct and being given a discharge UOTHC. 2. The applicant was determined to be medically qualified for retention and to be free of any significant mental defects. 3. While the applicant has not submitted any documentation to substantiate his contention that he has been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder or borderline paranoid schizophrenia, even if he had a current diagnosis it would not establish that he had those conditions while he was on active duty. 4. While it is commendable that the applicant has successfully completed a drug treatment program and is taking medication for his antisocial disorders, these positive steps do not form the basis for upgrading a properly issued discharge. 5. While the applicant was, in fact, 17 years old when he enlisted, he was 19 years old and had almost 2 years of active service when he was discharged. As such, his contention that his discharge should be upgraded because he was young and immature is not accepted. 6. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request. 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) AR20080006317 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080006317 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1