IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 January 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110011619 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 that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states no contentions. 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence. 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. On 22 October 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 75C (Personnel Management Specialist). The highest pay grade held was specialist four/E-4. 3. On 4 June 1990, the applicant's commander notified the applicant of his intention to recommend him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The commander cited the applicant's numerous acts of misconduct to include poor duty performance, failing the Army Physical Fitness Test, writing bad checks, and traffic violations as the bases for his recommendation. Further, he cited that the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for: * failure to repair on 26 October 1989 * failure to repair on 7 February 1990 * failure to repair (suspended reduction to E-3) on 8 March 1990 * failure to repair and vacation of the above suspended reduction to E-3 on 11 April 1990 4. On the same date, he acknowledged receipt of the commander's notification. He waived his right to counsel and did not elect to submit a statement in his own behalf. 5. His commander initiated a recommendation to separate the applicant due to unsatisfactory performance. He also requested that the requirement for rehabilitative transfer be waived because the applicant's performance continued to be substandard after numerous attempts to motivate him. 6. On 13 June 1990, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 7. Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 21 June 1990. He completed 3 years and 8 months of creditable active service. 8. The Army Discharge Review Board disapproved his request for an upgrade of his discharge on 13 July 1992. 9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. 10. 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 contends his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable. 2. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case. 3. The available record shows he was counseled for various acts of misconduct to include traffic violations, poor duty performance, and writing bad checks. In addition he accepted non judicial punishment on four occasions as a result of his acts of indiscipline. His service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. 4. In view of the foregoing, his request should be denied. 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) AR20110011619 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110011619 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1