IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 October 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110008463 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 be upgraded. 2. The applicant states he was a young adult who made bad choices. Since his discharge his conduct has changed. He is pursuing a master’s degree in business administration with hopes of a prosperous future. He is requesting a second chance at an opportunity to have a brighter future as a veteran. 3. The applicant did not provide any additional 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 September 1986. He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13E (Cannon Fire Direction Specialist). 3. On 15 June 1987, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being disorderly, underage drinking of alcohol (two incidents), and drunk driving. 4. On 17 July 1987, he was found guilty by a summary court-martial of failure to go to his place of duty (two specifications), being drunk on duty, and breaking restriction. 5. On 26 August 1987, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being considered for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The commander stated the action was based on the applicant’s NJP and summary court-martial. 6. The applicant consulted with counsel. He acknowledged his rights and elected to not submit a statement in his own behalf. 7. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 8. Accordingly, he was discharged on 2 October 1987, with a general discharge. He had completed 1 year and 7 days of total active service. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows in item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) that he was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar. 9. There is no record that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. 10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. a. 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. b. 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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. 2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case. 3. The applicant has not provided any evidence or sufficiently mitigating argument to warrant upgrade of his discharge. 4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. 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) AR20110008463 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1