BOARD DATE: 21 April 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140015863 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, in effect, an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. 2. The applicant states his service record was clean except for one mistake that wasn't his fault. He wants to be eligible for military veterans' benefits. 3. The applicant did not provide any documentation in support of his request. 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 8 December 1983 and he reenlisted on 30 June 1987. He held military occupational specialty 72E (Tactical Telecommunications Center Operator). 3. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows in: a. Item 5 (Oversea Service) he served in Korea from 18 November 1985 through 18 November 1986; and b. item 18 (Appointments and Reductions), the highest rank/grade he attained was specialist/E-4. 4. The applicant's discharge packet is not available for review. His DD Form 214 shows, on 8 February 1993, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct-commission of a serious offense, with a UOTHC discharge. He had completed 9 years and 2 months of active duty service. 5. There is no available evidence showing he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. 6. 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 commission of a serious offense. A serious offense is one which warrants separation and for which the individual could receive a punitive discharge at a trial by court-martial. 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 UOTHC discharge 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. c. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 7. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. Paragraph 2-9 states the ABCMR begins consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available. His DD Form 214 shows he was administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct-commission of a serious offense. 2. He has not provided any evidence to support his request. 3. The regulation governing this Board's operation requires that the discharge process be presumed to have been in accordance with applicable law and regulations unless the applicant can provide evidence to overcome that presumption. 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 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) AR20120009372 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140015863 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1