| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. John E. Denning | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. He states that he was young and did not understand the impact his general discharge would have on his life. He submits no evidence in support of his request, but does note that he served his "country for the length of time [he] did."
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 29 July 1981 at the age of 19, with 12 years of formal education. He successfully completed training and in November 1981 was assigned to Fort Ord, California.
Between January and June 1982 he was punished three times under Article 15 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), once for sleeping while on duty, and twice for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.
On 11 June 1982 his unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the Army's Expeditious Discharge Program. His commander cited the applicant's extremely poor attitude, failure to repair, apathy, and other misconduct, as the basis for his recommendation.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation and waived his attendant rights. The applicant also acknowledged that he understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if his service was characterized as under honorable conditions.
The unit commander's recommendation was approved and on 18 June 1982 the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions in pay grade E-1. He had less than 12 months of active Federal service at the time of his separation.
Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policy and sets forth the procedure for administrative separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5, as then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, for the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). This program provided that an individual who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who demonstrated (by poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or
failure to demonstrate promotion potential) that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards could be separated. Such personnel were issued a general or honorable discharge, as appropriate.
Army Regulation 635-200 also states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’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.
In 1983 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.
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. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (AR 15-185, paragraph 8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the ABCMR should commence on the date of final denial by the ADRB. In complying with this decision, the Board has adopted the broader policy of calculating the 3 year time limit from the date of exhaustion in any case where a lower level administrative remedy is utilized. The Board will continue to excuse any failure to timely file when it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
There is no evidence, and the applicant has not submitted any, which would serve as a basis to upgrade his discharge.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered in 1983, the year the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired in 1986.
The application is dated 18 September 2001 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.
DETERMINATION: The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain
sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law. Prior to reaching this determination the Board looked at the applicant's entire file. It was only after all aspects of his case had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of his record that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it would have recommended relief in spite of the applicant's failure to submit his application within the three-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__JNS __ __BJE___ __JED __ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2002066310 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020214 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 142.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087863C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 24 November 1981 the applicant's commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program), and that he receive a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001134
The applicant requests correction of his military records by upgrading his general discharge to an honorable discharge. On 20 May 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, and directed the applicant be furnished a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate). Accordingly, on 28 May 1982, the applicant was discharged.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011366
A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Since the applicant's record of service included three nonjudicial punishments, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011620
The applicant requests his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. There is no evidence in the available records that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004102226C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under honorable conditions, general discharge, be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 29 April 1982, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that he was initiating action to discharge him from the Army and that he was recommending that the applicant's service be characterized as, under honorable conditions. On the date of his discharge, the applicant had completed 1 year, 7 months, and 23 days active military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710183
APPLICANT REQUESTS : That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. PURPOSE : To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. The approval authority approved the recommendation and on 4 November 1976 the applicant was separated from active duty with a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710183C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008747
On 2 June 1982, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. On 15 June 1982, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. ____________x_____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015414
The commander stated he was recommending the applicants service be characterized as under honorable conditions. The commander advised the applicant that the decision as to whether he would be separated, whether he was to be discharged or transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), and the characterization of his service rested with the discharge authority. Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007996
The applicant's record contains a DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form), dated 15 July 1982, which shows that on 6 July 1982, the applicant was counseled on his un-Soldierly bearing, bad attitude, and poor duty performance. The applicant's record shows he completed 2 years and 3 days of total active military service with no lost time. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.