IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 October 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140002792 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 discharge. 2. The applicant states he had never had a bank account before he joined the Army. His actions arose out of ignorance rather than being willful. Since then he has learned about budgeting and personal finance. 3. The applicant provides no supporting 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. On 13 July 1993 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed training as an artillery fire support specialist and progressed to pay grade E-2. 3. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice in January and March 1994 for absences from his place of duty. 4. He was counseled in December 1993 about absence from his place of duty and twice in February 1994 for displaying a poor attitude and disrespect to a noncommissioned officer and for poor job performance. Additionally, he was counseled numerous times about writing bad checks. 5. On 12 April 1994, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate action against him with a general discharge for a pattern of misconduct. The applicant indicated he would submit a statement in his own behalf but none was received by 19 April. 6. The immediate commander recommended a general discharge in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, Patterns of Misconduct. The applicant's battalion commander recommended approval. 7. The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed he receive a general discharge. 8. On 5 May 1994, the applicant was accordingly discharged. He had completed a total of 9 months and 23 days of creditable active duty service. 9. There is no available indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board during his 15-year period of eligibility. 10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. b. Paragraph 3-7a states 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 behavior evidenced a pattern of misconduct and clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty expected of Army personnel. 2. The applicant's administrative discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. In addition, the reason and type of discharge directed were appropriate and equitable based on the facts of the case. 3. There is no basis for granting 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 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) AR20140002792 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140002792 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1