BOARD DATE: 4 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017749 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 BOARD DATE: 4 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017749 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. BOARD DATE: 4 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017749 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 upgrade of his general under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he is seeking to upgrade his character of service so he can obtain healthcare benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VA told him he would be "wasting [his] time" if he applied for healthcare because his discharge was "less than honorable." He states he does not feel this is right, and he would like to correct the situation. 3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), ending 21 March 1984. 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 14 October 1982. Following initial training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 76V (Materiel Storage and Handling Specialist), and assigned to Fort Hood, TX. 3. While at Fort Hood, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on 11 July 1983, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed (also referred to as failure to repair (FTR)). 4. On, or about, 12 March 1984, his commander at Fort Hood advised him, in writing, that he was being considered for elimination under the provisions of chapter 13 (Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance), Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel). The stated bases were: an arrest for driving while intoxicated (DWI); NJP for FTR, accepted on 11 July 1983; and a positive urinalysis for marijuana use. The applicant acknowledged the notification on 12 March 1984. 5. On 12 March 1984, the applicant affirmed counsel had advised him of the basis for the contemplated elimination action, and its effects. a. He further stated he was informed of his rights under chapter 13, AR 635-200, as well as the effects of any actions he may take to waive his rights. He elected to submit a written statement in his own behalf, and affirmed he understood he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life based on receiving a general under honorable conditions separation. b. In a self-authored statement, he essentially wrote: * while never been one to boast, he stated he had never had an immediate superior dissatisfied with his duty performance; he did his job, and did it well * he wanted to remain in the Army, and felt honored to serve * he expounded on his beliefs regarding service, and his views of others who might consider Russia (then-Soviet Union) as a primary adversary without really understanding much about the Russian way of life * for him it was important to understand the reasons why, for whatever he was being asked to do * as to the question of why the Army should keep him, other Soldiers in the unit had had DWIs, but were given a second chance; he felt he deserved a second chance * in the event his chain of command was separating him to set an example, he submitted this effort would fail * he predicted the Army would suffer when the Soldier they lose is educated, mature, and is eager to correct a problem * he indicated he preferred restriction to the barracks, extra duty, a bar to reenlistment, even rank reduction, to being separated; he asked to be allowed to complete his enlistment 6. On 15 March 1984, the separation authority approved the commander's recommendation, and directed the issuance of a general discharge. The applicant was discharged accordingly, on 21 March 1984. 7. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 5 months, and 8 days of net active creditable service. It also shows: * awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon * character of service was under honorable conditions * separation authority was chapter 13, AR 635-200 * narrative reason for separation was unsatisfactory performance 8. There is no evidence in the available records to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his character of service within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a – an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptance conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. b. A Soldier may be separated under the provisions of chapter 13 when it is determined that he is unqualified for further military service due to unsatisfactory performance. Criteria include: * in the commander's judgment, the Soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier * the seriousness of the circumstances is such that the Soldier's retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale * it is likely that the Soldier will be a disruptive influence in present or future duty assignments * it is likely the circumstances forming the basis for initiation of separation proceedings will continue or recur * the ability of the Soldier to perform duties effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's displayed a pattern of unsatisfactory performance, as evidenced by a DWI, an NJP, and his use of marijuana. Accordingly, his chain of command initiated separation against him. 3. The evidence of record appears to show his separation action was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, and there is no indication of procedural errors that would have jeopardized his rights. Further, it appears the characterization of service he received was commensurate with his record of indiscipline. 4. The ABCMR does not normally grant requests for discharge upgrades solely for the purpose of making an applicant eligible for veteran's benefits. Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge. Additionally, the granting of veteran’s benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR. Therefore, any questions regarding eligibility for healthcare and other benefits should be addressed to VA. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017749 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017749 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2