IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 December 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120009975 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 an upgrade of his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge (HD). 2. The applicant states he served for 6 years and was told he could opt to leave early due to his job. 3. The applicant provides a National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) and DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) in support of his request. 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 record shows the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) for 6 years on 6 August 1986. He entered initial active duty for training (IADT) on 25 August 1986. He completed IADT, was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76V (Materiel Storage and Handling Specialist), and was released from active duty and returned to his ARNG unit on 17 December 1986. 3. The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not contained in his record. The record does contain a letter of instruction for unexcused absences, dated 23 April 1992, which shows the applicant was absent from scheduled training assemblies for 10 to 12 April 1992, which constituted five periods of unexcused absences. The letter was mailed to the applicant by certified mail, but was it returned indicating it was unclaimed. 4. The record does contain an NGB Form 22 that shows the applicant was discharged from the ARNG on 1 June 1992 under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), paragraph 8-27g, by reason of unsatisfactory participation and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group. The NGB Form 22 shows he completed 5 years, 9 months, and 26 days of service and was issued a GD from the ARNG. 5. On 20 March 1993, the applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR. 6. There is no indication that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his ARNG discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 7. National Guard Regulation 600-200 establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the management of enlisted personnel of the ARNG and the ARNG of the United States, which includes enlisted separations. Paragraph 8-27g of the version in effect at the time of the applicant's discharge provided the authority to discharge members from the ARNG as unsatisfactory participants. The separation authority could issue an HD or GD. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's request to upgrade his GD to an HD has been carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. 2. The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge from the ARNG are not included in his record. However, his record does contain a properly-constituted NGB Form 22 that identifies the authority, reason and character of his discharge. 3. There is no evidence of record or independent evidence provided by the applicant that would suggest any error or injustice related to his discharge processing from the ARNG. As a result, there is a presumption that his discharge was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation and that his rights were protected throughout the separation process. As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief. 4. The applicant is advised as a matter of information that he ultimately received an HD from the USAR. 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 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) AR20120009975 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120009975 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1