BOARD DATE: 15 March 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110017210 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: * An honorable discharge would be more favorable and beneficial at this time * His active duty assignments were all served on foreign soil during peace time and in combat * He suffered from a disability while on active duty which impaired his ability to carry out certain duties * This disability was later diagnosed as service-connected * He received numerous awards including the Good Conduct Medal for three years of exemplary service * His original release date was 11 July 1993 but he was discharged approximately two months prior to that and was given a general discharge 3. The applicant provides: * Award certificate for the Good Conduct Medal * Educational certificates 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 11 July 1989 for a period of 4 years. He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (cannon crewmember) and he attained the rank of specialist. He served in Korea from 6 November 1989 to 5 November 1990 and he served in Germany from 30 November 1990 to 6 May 1993. 3. His records show he was reduced from E-4 to E-1 in 1993. No other details are available. 4. The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not contained in the available records. However, his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under honorable conditions (a general discharge) on 6 May 1993 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct (pattern of misconduct). He had served a total of 3 years, 9 months, and 25 days of creditable active service. 5. His DD Form 214 shows he received the: * Good Conduct Medal * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar * Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar * Driver and Mechanic Badge (Driver T-Bar) 6. There is no evidence which shows he was diagnosed with any medical condition prior to his discharge. 7. On 6 July 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an honorable discharge. 8. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense (military or civilian offense), and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. 9. 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Although he contends he suffered from a disability while on active duty which impaired his ability to carry out certain duties, there is no evidence of record which shows he was diagnosed with any medical condition prior to his discharge. 2. His service and awards and decorations were carefully considered. However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary it must be presumed his separation processing was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Without the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate with his overall record of service. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. 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) AR20110017210 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110017210 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1