IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150002052 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 an upgrade of his characterization of service from general under honorable conditions to fully honorable. 2. He states that he has been out of the Army for 30 years and he believes having an honorable discharge would look better and help him in his goals. He acknowledges that he made many mistakes during his service in the Army and he is not proud of that. He is trying to get an upgrade to improve his life and apply for benefits. He would have applied sooner, but thought he had to wait several years and then he forgot. 3. He provides: * a self-authored letter * a letter of support * his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 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 7 September 1982. The highest rank/pay grade he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3. However, at the time of his discharge, he held rank/pay grade private/E-2. 3. His record shows his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on three occasions for violating the following Articles of the UCMJ: * Article 92, by violating a lawful general regulation by the incorrect disposition of rationed items * Article 92, by failing to obey a lawful order issued by a commissioned officer * Article 86, by failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty 4. His record contains a DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form) which shows that he was counseled in December 1983 and January 1984 on his performance of duty and conduct. He was advised, in part, that his conduct was below standard. It was noted that he had received two NJPs under Article 15 in the past 8 months and was about to receive another. It was also noted that he was currently enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) and he could be eliminated from the military under the provisions of either chapter 9 (Alcohol or Drug Abuse) or chapter 13 (Unsatisfactory Performance) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) which could result in discharge under either honorable or other than honorable conditions. 5. On 9 January 1984, the applicant received a Bar to Reenlistment based upon the aforementioned reasons. 6. On 20 January 1984, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The unit commander cited the applicant's Article 15s as the primary reason for this proposed action. He also informed the applicant that he could receive a general discharge and be issued a General Discharge Certificate. The unit commander continued by advising the applicant of his right to consult with legal counsel, to submit written statements in his own behalf, to obtain copies of documents that would be sent to the separation authority supporting the proposed separation, and to waive these rights in writing. He acknowledged receipt of the unit commander's notification on the same day. 7. On 24 January 1984, he acknowledged that he had been advised by his consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to accomplish his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, and its effects; of the rights available to him; and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and waived his right to representation by counsel. 8. On 26 January 1984, the unit commander recommended the applicant's separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. 9. On 6 February 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. On 14 February 1984, he was discharged accordingly. 10. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge. On 29 January 1992, the applicant was notified that after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence, the ADRB determined that he was properly discharged. Accordingly, his request for a change in the character and/or reason of his discharge was denied. 11. The applicant provides a letter rendered by a man who states he has known the applicant for several years. He opines that the applicant is a good, loyal and diligent person with commendable character traits. In addition to caring for his ailing mother and his daughter, the applicant completed a course in welding which gives him the skill necessary skill to work at a high level in that profession. 12. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions. 13. 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. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his characterization of service to fully honorable was carefully considered. 2. Although he contends that 30 years have passed and he desires to be eligible for increased benefits, the record shows he had multiple disciplinary infractions and was counseled repeatedly. In spite of his indiscipline, his chain of command was willing to allow him to remain on active duty and continue to serve. Evidence clearly shows he was not responsive to the rehabilitative efforts of his command. 3. Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel which would warrant the issuance 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) AR20150002052 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150002052 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1