RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  6 May 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080000592 


	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.




Director



Analyst
      The following members, a quorum, were present:




Chairperson



Member



Member
	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).



THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his reason for discharge be changed. 

2.  The applicant states that he was discharged for lack of job performance potential.  In 1953 he attempted to get his general equivalency diploma (GED) and had successfully completed a phase of the program but was unable to complete the full course due his duty assignment.  The applicant further states that he performed as a noncommissioned officer (NCO) in an excellent manner as indicated by his efficiency rating and letters of appreciation.  He continues that Department of the Army (DA) Circular 635-2 (Personnel Separations) indicated that exceptions were allowed and his records are clean.   

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), with the period ending 30 January 1958; three pages from DA Circular 635-2; two Letters of Appreciation from the 520th Transportation Company (Light Truck); a 726th Transportation Company, 24th Transportation Battalion, Clearance Sheet, dated 12 July 1954; two DA Forms 137 (Installation Clearance Certificate); a United States Armed Forces Institute (USAFI) Military Test Report, dated 26 October 1953; and two U.S. Army Honorable Discharge Certificates.

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 military records are not available to the Board for review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed that the applicant’s records were lost or destroyed in that fire.  However, this case is being considered using reconstructed records, which primarily consist of his DD Forms 214, a DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), and a DA Form 24 (Service Record).

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 November 1950 and successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training.  He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 643.00 (Heavy Vehicle Driver).  The applicant was promoted to the rank of Sergeant (SGT)/E5 on 24 August 1953.  He was honorably discharged on 7 November 1954 and immediately reenlisted on 8 November 1954.  

4.  Item 20 (Aptitude Tests) of the applicant's DA Form 20 does not show a recorded score of 90 or higher in any of the aptitude areas of the Army Classification Battery (ACB). 

5.  Item 10 (Remarks) of the applicant's DA Form 24 shows the entry "Eligible for discharge under Job Performance Potential Program on 20 November 1957."

6.  On 30 January 1958, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-205, paragraph 2 and Department of the Army Circular 635-2 by reason of lack of job performance potential in the rank and grade of SGT/E-5.  He had completed a total of 7 years, 2 months, and 24 days of creditable active service.  

7.  Army Regulation 635-205 (Discharge and Release for the Convenience of the Government), in effect at the time, prescribed the separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the Government.  Except as delegated by these regulations or by special Department of the Army directives, the discharge or release of any enlisted member of the Army for the convenience of the Government would be at the Secretary's discretion and with the type of discharge as determined by him.  Such authority could be given either in an individual case or by an order applicable to all cases specified in such order.

8.  DA Circular 635-2 (Discharge of Enlisted Men Who Lack Job Performance Potential) dated 19 August 1957, prescribed criteria and procedures for the mandatory and voluntary discharge of enlisted Soldiers on active duty who were found to lack job performance potential.  The minimum standards for retention in the Army were established as final objectives.  For Regular Army enlisted men, other than those serving on initial enlistment, a recorded score on 90 or higher in at least three of the aptitude areas of the Army Classification Battery was required.  The scores of the aptitude areas were recorded on the individual DA Form 20.  It was the policy of the Department of the Army to discharge 
individuals who were determined to be lacking in job performance potential, with the exception of an individual deemed to possess the ability to absorb further training and to perform satisfactorily in the position for which trained; members who had 10 or more years active service; and members awarded the Purple Heart, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross, or the Silver Star Medal. 
9.  DA Circular 635-2 further stated that in evaluating personnel eligible for discharge under this circular, consideration would be given not only to the current circumstances of each case, but also to the capability of the individual to qualify for retention and to perform useful duty at such time as the standards were raised to the level prescribed.  Observations incident to arriving at a determination to retain or separate was governed by the necessity of protecting the best interest of the Army.  Determinations leading to discharge under this circular were made by the company commander or equivalent commander.  The commander having custody of the individual's records would enter the following remark in the service record (Section 10, DA Form 24), "Eligible for discharge under Job Performance Potential on (date________)."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence of record shows the applicant did not score 90 or higher in at least three of the aptitude areas of the ACB and was separated on 30 January 1958 due to lack of job performance potential.  It is acknowledged that there were exceptions for an individual deemed to possess the ability to absorb further training and to perform satisfactorily in the position for which trained.  However, it is presumed that the applicant's commander determined that he did not qualify for that exception.  It appears that at that time the applicant's commander determined that the applicant did not meet the minimum standards for retention, and the applicant's DA Form 24 indicates that he was eligible for discharge under the job performance program.  By regulation, this mandated that he be separated from the Army.

2.  Unfortunately, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the applicant's separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulation and without procedural errors that would jeopardize his rights.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___xxx  _  __xxx__  __xxx  ___    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.




      ___         XXX ___
                CHAIRPERSON


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080000592


5


DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
1901 SOUTH BELL STREET 2ND FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA  22202-4508