IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 February 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100019597 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 that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. He states his discharge should be changed to honorable. 3. He provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). 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 5 July 1979. 3. His disciplinary history includes acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on two occasions, for larceny and for altering a document. 4. He underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 22 June 1981 and he was diagnosed as having a "histrionic personality disorder." He was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his chain of command. 5. The applicant's unit commander notified him of his proposed discharge action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31, Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). The unit commander cited the basis for the proposed actions as the applicant’s poor attitude, lack of motivation, and inability to adapt to military standards. The applicant was advised of his rights. He acknowledged notification of the separation action, and he did not consult with legal counsel or submit statements in his own behalf. 6. The separation authority approved separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 7. On 21 August 1981, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31h(1), EDP due to failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. He completed 2 years, 1 month, and 17 days of active military service. 8. His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the Army. Paragraph 5-31 of this regulation, in effect at the time, governed the EDP. This program provided that members who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army because of existence of one or more of the following conditions may be separated when they failed to respond to counseling: * Poor attitude * Lack of motivation * Lack of self-discipline * Inability to adapt socially or emotionally * Failure to demonstrate promotion potential Under this regulation, a general or an honorable discharge was authorized, as appropriate. 10. 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 AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. 2. His service record shows he received two Article 15s, for larceny and for altering a document. 3. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined his overall military service did not meet the standards for an honorable discharge as defined in Army Regulation 635-200 and appropriately characterized his service as general under honorable conditions. 4. He has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the type of discharge he received was in error or unjust. Therefore, there is no basis for changing his discharge to honorable. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ____X____ ____X____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100019597 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100019597 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1