IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 July 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120000880 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 be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states it was a financial error. 3. The applicant provides no documentary evidence. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 June 1990 for a period of 4 years. He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 71M (chaplain assistant). On 27 August 1995, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted on 28 August 1995 for a period of 2 years. He was honorably discharged on 4 February 1997 for immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted on 5 February 1997 for a period of 2 years. On 23 February 1998, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted on 24 February 1998 for a period of 6 years. 2. His history of misconduct included: * Arrested for spouse abuse (twice) * Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) imposed on 1 April 1998 * Writing bad checks * Arrested for worthless checks * Bar to reenlistment 3. He was counseled for various infractions which included: * Failure to pay just debts * Failure to repair * False official statement * Disobeying a noncommissioned officer (NCO) 4. On 9 June 1999, he was notified of his pending separation for misconduct (patterns of misconduct) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-12b. The unit commander cited the applicant's civil conviction for writing worthless checks, spousal abuse, receiving an NJP for failing to properly secure his M-16 rifle and leaving his appointed place of duty, counseling on numerous occasions for failing to pay just debts, failure to repair, making a false official statement, and disobeying an NCO. 5. On 9 June 1999, he consulted with counsel, acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued, and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf. 6. On 18 June 1999, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge. 7. On 9 July 1999, he was discharged under honorable conditions (general discharge) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct (patterns of misconduct). He completed a total of 9 years and 3 days of creditable active service with 9 days of lost time. 8. On 26 October 2010, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an honorable discharge. 9. Army Regulation 635-200 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 a serious offense (military or civilian offense), and convictions by civil authorities. 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 appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. 10. Army Regulation 635-200, 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 AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. His record of service during his last enlistment included one NJP, civil convictions for worthless checks and spousal abuse, numerous adverse counseling statements for various offenses, and 9 days of lost time. As a result, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant's 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 in which he could have voiced his concerns; however, he failed to do so. 3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons were therefore appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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) AR20120000880 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120000880 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1