IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 May 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007717 BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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: 31 May 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007717 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 general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states he feels his discharge should be changed to honorable. He was discharged for unsatisfactory performance but he is not like that now. There wasn't anything he did to support the allegations. He asked to leave due to the fact the military was working on him mentally. He was so far from home and at a young age. He tried several times to reenlist but it was hopeless. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation date of 18 January 1984 * a statement from his employer, dated 27 March 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. On 21 June 1982, at the age of 18, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. On 20 October 1982, he was assigned to Company B, 2nd Battalion, 28th Infantry in Germany. 3. On 21 July 1983, the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for being disrespectful in language toward a non-commissioned officer (NCO) and for assaulting an NCO. His punishment consisted of reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of one half pay for 2 months, and 15 days correctional custody. On 27 July 1983, the applicant appealed the punishment and on 9 September 1983, his appeal was denied. 4. The applicant was counseled by a sergeant first class concerning the following deficiencies: * 21 July 1983 - he received NJP from the battalion commander for disrespect to and assault on an NCO * 17 November 1983 - he was again counseled on having a substandard room, military appearance, and disrespect to an NCO * 29 November 1983 - he was counseled for being disrespectful to an NCO * 30 November 1983 - he assaulted another member while he was drunk and disorderly in a public place 5. On 8 December 1983, the applicant's commander stated the applicant had lied about his original assault incident and seemed like he might be a discipline problem. He warned the applicant he was lucky not to be in jail and if another incident occurs he just might be put in jail. The applicant had been counseled several times about his misconduct and unsatisfactory performance. The commander was considering him for elimination under Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). 6. On 14 December 1983, he was given a mental status evaluation. The examiner determined he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, able to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed necessary by his command. a. The applicant admitted to having poor impulse control and had several incidents of disrespectful and combative behavior. He projected blame onto others for his problems and failed to learn from past experiences. He has limited insight and lacks productive goals. He resents authority and structure which makes him a poor candidate for rehabilitation. His response to unit counselling has been marginal and he continues to show little respect for the chain of command. b. The applicant was cleared from a mental health standpoint for any action deemed appropriate by Command to include administrative discharge or disciplinary action. 7. On 15 December 1983, the applicant received NJP for participating in a breach of peace by wrongfully engaging in a fight in a public place on 30 November 1983. His punishment consisted of 14 days restriction, 14 days extra duty, and forfeiture of 1 weeks' pay. He did not appeal his punishment. 8. On 15 December 1983, the applicant's commander notified him he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The reasons for this action were the applicant's: * complete and total apathy towards his job * inability to follow instruction given to him by his chain of command * repeated violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 9. The commander advised the applicant of his right to: * consult with a consulting counsel * submit statements in his own behalf * be represented by counsel or to waive any of these rights * withdraw any waiver of these rights at any time prior to the date the discharge authority directed or approved his discharge 10. On 29 December 1983, the applicant, after having been advised by counsel, submitted a statement acknowledging that he had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant indicated that he was submitting a statement in his own behalf. The applicant further acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge was issued to him. 11. In his statement the applicant indicated he would like to continue serving his military commitment in the U.S. Army Reserve. He took responsibility for his actions and mistakes. He felt that knowing where he stood and where he wanted to be, he could keep others from making the same mistakes he did. He would show others the military was nothing to abuse or take advantage of. 12. The applicant's commander recommended the applicant be eliminated from further military service before the expiration of his term of service for unsatisfactory performance based on his: * total disregard toward military regulations * failure to heed counseling from his chain of command * repeated violations of the UCMJ 13. On 3 January 1984, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's discharge for unsatisfactory performance and directed the applicant be issued General Discharge Certificate. 14. On 18 January 1984, the applicant was discharged by reason of unsatisfactory performance. He completed 1 year, 6 months, and 28 days of active service that was characterized as under honorable conditions. The narrative reason for discharge shown on his DD Form 214 is "Unsatisfactory performance." 15. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 16. A statement, dated 27 March 2015, from the applicant's employer indicates the applicant has worked for them since 2005 and continued to be a valuable part of their Boise team. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 13, in effect at the time, provided for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when, in the commander's judgment: * the individual would not become a satisfactory Soldier * retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale * the service member would be a disruptive influence in the future * the basis for separation would continue or recur * the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future including potential for advancement or leadership, was unlikely * Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance was characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions. b. An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would have been clearly inappropriate. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant’s age at time of enlistment was noted. However, many Soldiers enlisted at a young age and went on to complete their enlistments and receive honorable discharges. Therefore, the age of the applicant cannot be used as a reason to change a properly issued discharge. 2. The quality of the applicant’s service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. 3. He was advised and he acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued to him. 4. The applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with regulations in effect at the time. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. The records contain no indication of procedural or other errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights. 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. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007717 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007717 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2