IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 February 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150007715 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 that his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states his discharge was inequitable because he completed the vast majority of his enlistment and all tours of duty without any severe adverse actions, violent crimes, or drug use. He contends he served his country honorably during his enlistment. 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence. 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 25 January 1996. 3. He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on: * 12 June 1997, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 22 May through on or about 24 May 1997 * 2 March 1998, for breaking restriction on or about 28 January 1998 4. His records contain several DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Form), with dates ranging from 2 June 1997 to 27 January 1998, which show he was counseled for several acts of misconduct that included failing to report for duty on various occasions, being AWOL for 48 hours, disobeying lawful orders, rendering several dishonored checks, failing to comply with standard operating procedures, and being detained by civil authorities. 5. His records also include several notices of indebtedness from civilian institutions addressed to his commanding officer requesting assistance in the collection of the applicant's just debts. 6. The applicant's unit commander advised him on 22 April 1998 that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, based on a pattern of misconduct. His commander indicated he was recommending the applicant receive a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service. The reasons cited by the commander for the proposed separation action were the applicant's several instances of failing to report for duty, being AWOL on two occasions, failing to follow instructions, rendering dishonored checks, and disobeying lawful orders. He was advised of his right to: * consult with legal counsel * present his case before an administrative separation board * submit statements in his own behalf * waive his rights in writing 7. The applicant's regiment commander recommended approval of the separation action, with his service characterized as general, under honorable conditions. 8. The separation authority approved the recommendation for the applicant's separation on 12 May 1998, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, with service characterized as general, under honorable conditions. The applicant was discharged accordingly on 21 May 1998. He completed 2 years, 3 months, and 25 days of creditable active service. 9. The Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge on 2 August 2002. 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 minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, commission of a serious 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. 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 contends his general, under honorable conditions discharge should be upgrade to honorable because his discharge was inequitable. He bases his contention on his overall record of service. 2. The evidence of record shows he accepted NJP on two occasions for being AWOL and for breaking restriction. The evidence also shows he was counseled on numerous occasions for several acts of misconduct. In addition, his record includes evidence of his failure to pay just debts. 3. Based on the applicant's repeated acts of misconduct, his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. His misconduct also clearly diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 4. The evidence confirms his separation processing for a pattern of misconduct was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 5. The applicant has failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the command's actions and/or the characterization of his service were in error or unjust. 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) AR20150007715 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150007715 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1