IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 February 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130011633 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 discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that since leaving the Army he has endeavored to become a good husband, father, and respected member of his community and church. 3. The applicant provides a one-page letter explaining 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 January 1989 for a period of 3 years and 14 weeks. He completed one-station unit training as an infantryman at Fort Benning, Georgia and was transferred to Fort Ord, California for his first and only duty assignment. 3. On 23 August 1991, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. He cited the following as the bases for his recommendation: * 20 September 1990 – check cashing privileges suspended for indebtedness * 16 April 1991 – counseled for failure to pay just debts * 14 May 1991 - counseled for failure to pay just debts * 20 June 1991 – failure to go to his place of duty * 25 June 1991 – counseled for cashing checks on over-stamped ID Card * 10 July 1991 – nonjudicial punishment imposed for being incapacitated for proper performance of duties 4. After consulting with defense counsel the applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 5. On 28 August 1991, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate. 6. Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 6 September 1991 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. He had served 2 years, 7 months, and 27 days of active service. 7. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. 8. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct. Specific categories include minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, and commission of a serious offense, which includes drug offenses. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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 AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would jeopardize his rights. 2. Accordingly, the characterization and the narrative reason for separation were appropriate for the circumstances of his case. 3. The applicant's contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the repeated nature of his offenses and his failure to respond to repeated counseling. 4. Accordingly, the applicant's overall service simply did not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge. 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) AR20130011633 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130011633 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1