BOARD DATE: 21 January 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005083 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 general under honorable conditions discharge. 2. The applicant states he believes his record is unjust because the offenses were minor and they do not justify a general discharge. 3. The applicant provides no additional documents. 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 27 October 1987 for a period of 4 years and then extended for 5 months. 3. He received numerous adverse counseling statements on various dates between February and December 1990 for the following infractions: * failure to follow instructions * patterns of misconduct * alcohol in the billets * failure to repair on numerous occasions * failure to clean personal equipment and lack of preparation for inspections * having military ammunition in billet area * failure to pay debts and writing worthless checks 4. His disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on three occasions for the following offenses: * disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (NCO) on 26 October 1989 (DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) is not available.) * disobeying a lawful order from a NCO on 24 December 1989 * being derelict in the performance of his duties on 9 February 1990 5. A bar to reenlistment was imposed on 8 February 1990 for his documented patterns of misconduct, failure to pay debts, writing worthless checks and failure to repair on numerous occasions. 6. On 5 July 1990 his unit commander notified him of the proposed recommendation to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 13-2, for unsatisfactory performance. He was advised of his rights. 7. On 5 July 1990 he acknowledged receipt of the pending separation action. On the same date he consulted with legal counsel and did not submit statements in his own behalf. 8. On 10 July 1990 the separation authority waived rehabilitative transfer and directed the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with his service characterized as general under honorable conditions. 9. On 19 July 1990 he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. He had completed a total of 2 years, 8 months, and 23 days of active military service. 10. His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 11. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 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. 12. Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 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 contention that his record is unjust because the offenses were minor and they did not justify a general discharge was carefully considered. 2. The applicant received many adverse counseling statements and three NJPs for violating numerous articles of the UCMJ. His duty performance normally expected of Soldiers was substandard to include failing to obey the orders of his NCOs, failing to report to work, failing to follow instructions, violating numerous Army regulations concerning alcohol consumption and its possession in his billets and being in the possession of ammunition in his billets. In addition to his substandard duty performance, he also did not pay his debts and knowingly wrote worthless checks. While the applicant argues these are minor infractions, when viewed as a whole it appears the applicant would not follow instructions or comply with regulatory guidance. Based on these "minor infractions," his duty performance was considered unsatisfactory. 3. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. 4. It appears the separation authority determined the applicant's overall service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty to warrant recommendation of a fully honorable discharge and characterized his service as general under honorable conditions. The applicant has not provided evidence or an argument which warrants changing his current characterization of service to fully honorable. 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) AR20150005083 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005083 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1