IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 October 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110007841 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 upgrade of his general under honorable conditions (GD) discharge to an honorable discharge (HD). 2. The applicant did not provide a reason for his request for an upgrade. 3. The applicant provides no additional 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’s records show he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 25 June 1958, and he was trained in and awarded the military occupational specialty 179.16 (Air Defense Missile Fire Control Crewman). The highest grade he attained was pay grade E-4. 3. The applicant's record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. His disciplinary history includes his conviction by a special court-martial on 6 May 1961, for leaving his post before being properly relieved. 4. On 19 May 1961, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provision of paragraph 2 of Army Regulation 635-205 (Discharge and Release Convenience of the Government) and Department of the Army Message 553313, dated 21 April 1961. He received a character of service under honorable conditions and completed a total of 2 years, 10 months, and 25 days of creditable active military service. 5. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 6. Army Regulation 635-205, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. Paragraph 2 of this regulation provided that the separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government and the type of discharge were the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army and would be effected only by his authority. 7. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. 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 be inappropriate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contention that his GD should have been upgraded to an HD was carefully considered. 2. The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. All requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. In this case, the applicant's disciplinary history clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. As a result, it appears to support the GD issued by the separation authority at the time. Absent any evidence that his discharge was improper or inequitable, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support an upgrade of his discharge at this late date. 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) AR20110007841 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110007841 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1