BOARD DATE: 2 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150019150 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x____ ___x_____ ____x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 2 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150019150 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. BOARD DATE: 2 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150019150 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, in effect, he tried his best to finish his enlistment, but his first sergeant suggested that he be chaptered out of the Army. If he could do it all over again, he would definitely do things the right way. He believes he was too young and immature when he enlisted in the Army. He thinks he should have waited a few years to grow and mature then things would have worked out better for him. He does not believe that his chain of command (appropriately) explained what a chapter was or give him the opportunity to fight it and receive legal counsel and possibly explore options rather than being discharged. 3. The applicant provides no additional documents. 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's service record shows he was born on 30 August 1967. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 September 1986 for a period of 3 years at the age of 19. 3. The applicant's service record shows he received counseling on various dates between April and November 1987 for drinking under age, failing the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), terminating correspondence courses, losing his DD Form 2A (Identification Cards, Tags, and Badges), writing bad checks, missing a drug and alcohol appointment, and being late for duty. 4. On 2 December 1987, he underwent a mental status evaluation based on self-referral through his commander. The mental health official stated the applicant experienced difficulty dealing with imminent military separation; he was mentally responsible for his behavior, could distinguish right from wrong; and he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings. This official stated that although the applicant enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program, his alcohol abuse continued. 5. On 18 December 1987, the unit commander notified the applicant of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The commander advised him of his rights. 6. On 22 December 1987, the applicant acknowledged he had been afforded the opportunity to consult with appointed counsel for consultation or military counsel of his own choice. He requested counsel and was advised by his consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to accomplish his separation for unsatisfactory performance of duty under the provisions of Army Regulation, chapter 13 and its effects; of the rights available to him; and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. He elected to submit statements in his own behalf. 7. An undated statement from the applicant shows he requested that he be recommended for an honorable discharge because he “received a few good complaints from the different sections of the company.” He did a good job in the field as a medic. Also, an honorable discharge would help him get a good job on the outside and better his career or whatever field of work he chose to do. He stated his company commander also recommended him for an honorable discharge. 8. On 22 December 1987, the company commander recommended an honorable characterization of service. The commander stated the applicant demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel. This failure was evidenced by the existence of the following conditions: his unsatisfactory performance of duty, his conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline, and his failure to respond to formal counseling. 9. On 22 December 1987, the separation authority waived rehabilitation requirements and directed the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general), and the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 10. Accordingly, on 4 January 1988, the Army discharged him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance, with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service. He completed 1 year, 3 months, and 28 days of active military service with no lost time. 11. On 30 September 1993, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provided for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, will be unlikely. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions (general). 2. 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: 1. The evidence of record shows the applicant received adverse counseling statements based on drinking under age, failing the APFT, terminating correspondence courses, losing his DD Form 2A, writing bad checks, missing a drug and alcohol appointment, and being late for duty. His duty performance was considered substandard based on these circumstances. 2. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would have jeopardized his rights. 3. Records show the applicant was 20 years of age at the time of his offenses. However, there is no evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 4. The evidence of record shows the applicant consulted counsel and was properly advised of the basis for the contemplated action to accomplish his separation for unsatisfactory performance of duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. 5. Although the applicant's company commander recommended the applicant receive an honorable characterization of service, it appears the separation authority determined the applicant's overall service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty to warrant an honorable character of service and characterized his service as under honorable conditions (general). 6. The evidence of record does not indicate the actions taken against the applicant were in error or unjust. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150019150 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150019150 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2