BOARD DATE: 3 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150002150 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 discharge to general under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states that he was undisciplined and immature. This led to numerous errors in judgement that he is ashamed of. He has attempted to correct his actions via mentoring and being a productive citizen. He considers that he made one of the greatest mistakes of his life. It was a long time ago but it still haunts him. Maybe changing his other than honorable discharge will help him close this chapter of his life. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), his personal statement as summarized above, and three character reference letters. 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 18 September 1979 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army at the age of 17 years and 10 months. He completed training as an infantryman, was stationed in Germany, and progressed normally. The applicant reenlisted in September 1981, returned to the United States in December and was promoted to sergeant (E-5) in September 1982. 3. On 18 October 1983 he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for absence from his place of duty by missing morning formation. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $211.00 per month for 1 month plus restriction and extra duty for 7 days. 4. In March 1984 he was transferred to Hawaii. The applicant was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award) for the period ending September 1985 and reenlisted again in March 1986. 5. In mid-July 1986 he accepted NJP for absence from his place of duty and altering an official record, a sick slip. The imposed punishment, consisting of reduction to pay grade E-4 and extra duty for 30 days, was set aside by the battalion commander. 6. The applicant was transferred to Fort Riley, Kansas in January 1978. There he committed numerous offenses including a civilian theft. The civilian sentence to confinement was suspended and the applicant was placed on probation, but in October 1987, he was given 22 days in confinement because he neglected to pay $2.50 in restitution. 7. In January 1988 the company commander notified the applicant of his recommended separation for numerous acts of misconduct and questionable moral character. The applicant acknowledged the notice, consulted with counsel and elected to appear, with counsel, before a board of officers. 8. The board of officers heard testimony from the chain of command, from witnesses called by the applicant to support his quest for retention, and from the applicant to the effect that he had some financial problems and an alcohol problem. He didn’t think the command was aware of his drinking problem, but that was behind him anyway because “I know when to stop drinking now.” The applicant’s wife testified that he had changed and drank more because the First Sergeant was out to get him. He had improved since being in confinement and she would help him with the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program. 9. The board of officers found that the applicant was unsuitable for continued service because of a pattern of misconduct and recommended discharge with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. The separation authority approved the recommendation and ordered him reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. 10. On 23 June 1988 the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct. He had served 8 years, 8 months, and 14 days of creditable service. His awards included the Army Service Ribbon, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon with Numeral 2, Overseas Service Ribbon, Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award) Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Missile and Grenade Bars and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar. 12. In support of his request the applicant provided character references as follows: a. A fellow member of the applicant’s church states that they have shared choir, retreats, bowling and other church sponsored activities. The applicant is a loyal and dependable person who would help a person in any way he could. Some people might be bitter but the applicant is a positive, uplifting person. He is a devoted family man and a lasting friend. b An assistant pastor writes that he has known the applicant for 7 years. When they met the applicant was already involved in the church activities. He made the writer and his family feel welcome. The applicant has been an invaluable member of their music ministry. As president of the Young Adult Choir he has touched the lives of many young people in the church and in the community. c. A Senior Pastor writes that the applicant has been a longtime, faithful member. He has been an honest and upright gentleman. He has overcome tremendous challenges to lead a highly productive and successful life. 12. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board. 13. Army Regulation 635–200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 14 deals with separation for various types of misconduct, which includes a pattern of misconduct. 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant states that he was undisciplined and immature. This led to numerous errors in judgement. He has attempted to correct his actions via mentoring and being a productive citizen. 2. The applicant served successfully for several years. He was promoted to sergeant and earned two Army Good Conduct Medals. Obviously, he was neither too young nor too immature to serve. 3. The letters of support that the applicant submitted are noted but they are not so outstandingly meritorious, in and of themselves, as to warrant upgrading the discharge. 4. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The characterization of his service is commensurate with the applicant's record of indiscipline as an NCO. 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) AR20150002150 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150002150 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1