IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150001841 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x___ ____x___ ___x_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150001841 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150001841 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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. 2. The applicant states he has had time to reflect on the incidents relating to his UOTHC discharge. He has since gotten married and ordained as a minister. He has two sons he is directing in a positive manner. He is also leading a ministry. When he speaks about his past in the military he would like to have "some good on top of the much good" he has obtained. The discipline, knowledge, and time in the military has played a major role in who he is today. 3. The applicant provides a copy of a Certificate of Ordination. 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 September 1996. He held military occupational specialty 67R (AH-64 Attack Helicopter Repairer). 3. The applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him for a pattern of misconduct. The commander stated the reasons for this action were that the applicant had committed many larcenies, totaling over $100.00; he had attempted to sell stolen property to another Soldier; he had committed obstruction of justice by attempting to make a potential witness lie during an investigation in which the applicant was a suspect; he had been absent without leave (AWOL); he had accepted collect calls on a Government phone without authorization; he had failed to be at his appointed pace of duty at the time prescribed time on numerous occasions; he had been disrespectful to his superior noncommissioned officers (NCO's) a number of times; and he had failed to obey many lawful orders given to him by his superior NCO's. The commander recommended an UOTHC discharge. 5. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification, consulted with counsel, and indicated he would not submit a statement in his own behalf. 6. The applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b (Patterns of Misconduct). 7. Consistent with the chain of command recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed he receive a UOTHC discharge. 8. On 20 April 1999, the applicant was discharged for misconduct. He had completed a total of 2 years, 7 months, and 7 days of net active duty service this period. 9. There is no evidence showing the applicant had previously petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. 10. In support of his request he provides a Certificate of Ordination showing he was ordained as a Minister of the Gospel on 13 April 2014. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions (a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline). 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. b. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged for a pattern of misconduct. His commander reported the applicant was cited for numerous offenses. 2. The applicant's administrative discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. In addition, the reason and type of discharge directed were appropriate and equitable based on the facts of the case. 3. The applicant's evidence was reviewed; however, it is insufficient to mitigate the conduct that led to his discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150001841 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150001841 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2