BOARD DATE: 15 June 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000671 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: 15 June 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000671 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: 15 June 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000671 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 discharge from general under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states: a. He wants to help his children by obtaining United Services Automobile Association (USAA) insurance. His current discharge makes him ineligible. His children mean everything to him. He is a law-abiding citizen and deserves an honorable discharge. b. He receives disability from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He has been a model citizen and has not been in any trouble. He has a family that he is trying to help. c. He requested an upgrade of his discharge more than 20 years ago. 3. The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his application. 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 26 November 1982. 3. He was counseled on numerous occasions for: * being late for duty on multiple occasions * approved bar to reenlistment effective 13 December 1985 * missing formation * missing movement * being absent from appointed place of duty on multiple occasions * screening positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC – the principal psychoactive constituent of marijuana) * failing to pay a debt 4. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on: * 17 October 1985, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty * 31 December 1985, for wrongfully using marijuana * 7 January 1986, for being absent from his appointed place of duty * 21 January 1986, for wrongfully using marijuana 5. On 12 March 1986, his immediate commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13. His commander advised him of his rights. 6. On that same day, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and consulted with counsel who advised him of the basis for his contemplated separation and its effects and the rights available to him. He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. He acknowledged that he understood that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and he would be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under Federal and State laws as a result of a general discharge under honorable conditions. 7. On 17 March 1986 after the applicant was counseled by his military counsel, his commander recommended his separation for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, based on his disciplinary record. 8. On 25 March 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation action and directed characterization of his service as general under honorable conditions. 9. On 1 April 1986, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200. He completed 3 years, 4 months, and 6 days of net active service. His service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general). 10. The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant's request for review of his discharge. On 11 December 1996, the ADRB determined the reason for his discharge and the character of his service were both proper and equitable. The ADRB denied the request. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provides that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. b. 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 applicant received nonjudicial punishment on four separate occasions for misconduct. The evidence of record confirms the applicant demonstrated he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel as evidenced by the numerous times he was counseled for misconduct. Accordingly, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him. 2. His separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation were therefore appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 3. The evidence shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the applicable regulations. Based on his overall record, his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel, and it now appears his service does not warrant an upgrade based on his multiple infractions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000671 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000671 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2