BOARD DATE: 1 May 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130014125 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 (GD) upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD) and his reason for separation be changed. 2. The applicant states being 17 years old and on active service was stressful. He asks that he be given some leeway due to his immaturity and inexperience. His reason for separation should be changed to something that more closely resembles his actual tour of duty. 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, at age 17 years and 8 months, enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 December 1984, completed training, and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewman). 3. On 31 January 1987, the applicant was arrested by civilian authorities for public intoxication. 4. On 3 February 1987, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for disobeying a direct order (two specifications) and disrespectful conduct toward a noncommissioned officer. 5. On 24 April 1987, the applicant was convicted by a civilian court of driving under the influence of intoxicants. 6. On 26 May 1987, his command initiated separation proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct. The specific reasons cited were two alcohol-related offenses, displaying resentment to authority, apathy, and difficulty adapting to changes. It was recommended that the provision for rehabilitative transfer be waived and that he be discharged with a GD. 7. After consulting with counsel the applicant acknowledged the separation action and waived his right to submit a personal statement. 8. The separation authority approved the waiver of rehabilitative transfer and directed the applicant be discharged with a GD. He was discharged on 9 June 1987 with a GD. 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, 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. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. 10. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states 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. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 2. The applicant was almost 18 years old when he enlisted, he successfully completed basic and advanced training, and had served without recorded incident for over two years before committing the offenses that led to his discharge. This service documents the fact that he had the capacity to serve honorably. 3. The reason for his discharge is appropriate to the offenses that led to that discharge and his initial period of good service appears to have been taken into account as he was afforded a GD when in most cases a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate. 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) AR20130014125 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130014125 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1