IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001713 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 IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001713 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001713 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 his under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states he was released on a chapter 13 discharge for his failure to maintain Army weight standards. Being released under chapter 13 does not mean he was doing unsatisfactory work. He served his country as a young man and paid $1,100.00 into the [Montgomery GI Bill] college fund. 3. The applicant provides a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 10-10EZ (Application for Health Benefits), dated 21 December 2015. 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 6 November 1987. 3. The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) on 11 August 1988, under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for wrongful use of a controlled substance on or about 25 May 1988. 4. The applicant's record shows he was formally counseled by members of his chain of command on numerous occasions during the period of July through October 1988, for a myriad of disciplinary infractions including: * failure to maintain Army body fat standards * failure to be at his appointed place of duty at the appointed time * failure to repair (missing formation) * passing dishonored checks 5. The applicant was notified on 15 September 1988, through his immediate commander, that he had rendered 21 dishonored checks to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, totaling $1,460.00. 6. The applicant was notified by his immediate commander, on 7 October 1988, that he was being considered for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. His commander stated his reasons for the recommended separation action included continuously uttering worthless checks, repeated failure to go to appointed places of duty, and not making satisfactory progress in the weight control program. His commander recommended he receive a general discharge. 7. After consulting with counsel, the applicant was advised of the effects of the proposed separation action and of his right to submit statements in his own behalf. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification for separation on 11 October 1988, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 8. The approval authority approved the recommendation for separation on 12 October 1988, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 9. The applicant was discharged on 26 October 1988, following completion of 11 months and 21 days of active service. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms his service was characterized as under honorable conditions. 10. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. a. 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. b. Chapter 13 provides 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, is unlikely. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions (general). DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends he was discharged for his failure to maintain Army weight standards. The evidence of record shows he was not discharged solely because of his weight. His record shows he was discharged for repeatedly passing worthless checks, for repeatedly failing to go to his appointed places of duty, and for failing to make satisfactory progress in the weight control program. 2. The evidence of record confirms his separation processing for unsatisfactory performance was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. The separation authority determined his service did not rise to the level required for an honorable discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001713 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001713 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2