IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 November 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220006461 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his general under honorable conditions discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states, in effect, the decision to discharge him was inappropriate, with no proven facts to support the discharge. His discharge does not reflect his true character, as he was an outstanding Soldier. Even though he elected not to have counsel, he was told counsel would not be necessary, as this was not a court-martial. As a young Soldier, he could have been instructed better. 3. A review of the applicant's service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 October 1986 for four (4) years. b. On 2 August 1988, he was given a Summarized Article 15 for disobeying a lawful order from an NCO on 30 July 1988. c. He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 10 August 1988 for absenting himself from his unit without authority on 11 July 1988, and for disobeying a lawful order from an NCO on two occasions on 14 July 1988 and 3 August 1988. He was reduced to the grade private 2/E-2. d. He accepted NJP on 16 March 1989 for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: missing a movement with his unit on 24 February 1989. He was reduced to the grade private/E-1. e. On 5 July 1989, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, for patterns of misconduct. f. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to separate him. He waived consulting legal counsel and representation by military counsel and civilian counsel at no expense to the Government. He was advised of the importance of consulting with legal counsel, and the consequences of waiving that right. He acknowledged he: * understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him * understood he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under Federal and State laws as a result of the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions * understood if he received a discharge characterization of less than honorable, he could make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for an upgrade, but he understood that an act of consideration by either board did not imply his discharge would be upgraded g. DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 21 April 1989 and 6 June 1989, reflect the applicant was evaluated and was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command. h. Subsequent to this acknowledgement and consultation with counsel, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him due to a pattern of misconduct, in accordance with AR 635-200, chapter 14-12b. His chain of command recommended approval. i. It is unknown as to the exact date in which the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct, with his service characterized as general under honorable conditions. The applicant was discharged accordingly on 7 August 1989. j. 257th Personnel Service Company, Composite Team Orders 169-4, dated 11 July 1989, reflects the applicant was reassigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point, Fort Dix, New Jersey for transition processing, with a reporting date to be determined. The applicant s effective date of discharge is 7 August 1989, as annotated in both the Army Discharge Review Board Case Report & Directive and the Army Board for Correction of Military Record of Proceedings. 4. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 1 February 1990. The ADRB determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. 5. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) provides action will be taken to separate a member for a pattern of misconduct. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. 6. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant s petition and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, to include the DoD guidance on liberal consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests, the Board determined relief was not warranted. Based upon the pattern of misconduct leading to the applicant s separation and the lack of any mitigation provided for the misconduct, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice warranting a change to the applicant s characterization of service. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :xx :xx :xx DENY APPLICATION 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), sets forth the basic authority for the separation 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. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Chapter 14, of the version in effect at the time, established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. It provided that action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority could direct an honorable discharge if merited by the Soldier's overall record. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220006461 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1