IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 January 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140002203 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 discharge. 2. The applicant states he would appreciate an upgrade of his discharge to correct the record and increase his eligibility for education benefits in order to better himself and his family. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) 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 21 August 1991 at the age of 18 years, 11 months, and 16 days. He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 77F (Petroleum Supply Specialist). 3. Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he was reduced from the rank/grade of specialist/E-4 to the rank/grade of private first class/E-3 on 7 April 1995. 4. The complete facts and circumstances of his discharge are not available for review with this case. However, his record contains a DD Form 214 which shows he was discharged for misconduct on 21 September 1995 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he completed a total of 4 years, 1 month, and 1 day of creditable active service with no lost time. 5. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 6. 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, and convictions by civil authorities. Action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. 7. 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's records are void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge. However, his records contain his DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 21 September 1995 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct. 2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. He provided no information that would indicate the contrary. The reason for discharge and the characterization of service appear both proper and equitable. 3. The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to upgrade discharges in order to make an applicant eligible for education or other benefits. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge. Changes may be warranted if it is determined that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. 4. In light of the foregoing, there is insufficient evidence to support the 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 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) AR20140002203 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140002203 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1