RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080001069 


	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 general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  The applicant also requests a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was the best in his battalion, both mentally and physically.  He also states that his Army record will show he was the best in his military occupational specialty (MOS) and he knew more about the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT) than anyone.  

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary 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 military service records show that he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 27 February 1978 and entered active duty in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 14 March 1978.  Upon completion of basic combat training and advanced individual training (AIT), he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 19J1O (M60A2 Armor Crewman).  The applicant was advanced to the rank of private/pay grade E-2 on 14 September 1978 and this was the highest rank he attained during his military service.

3.  The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice]), dated 23 January 1979.  This document shows that non-judicial punishment was imposed by the squadron commander against the applicant for, on or about 2145 hours, 5 December 1978, stealing 1 B.F. Goodrich tire and
1 rim, of a value of less than $50.00, the property of another Soldier.  The punishment imposed was reduction to the grade of private/pay grade E-1 (suspended for a period of 6 months); forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for a period of 2 months ($100.00 pay per month for a period of 2 months suspended for a period of 6 months); extra duty for a period of 10 days; and restriction to the company area, place of worship, and place of duty for a period of 10 days.

4.  The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 24 May 1979.  This document shows that non-judicial punishment was imposed by the squadron commander against the applicant for, on or about 21 July 1979, stealing gasoline (value unknown), the property of another Soldier.  The punishment imposed was reduction to the grade of private/pay grade E-1; forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for a period of 2 months; extra duty for a period of 15 days; and restriction to the company area, place of worship, and place of duty for a period of 15 days.

5.  On 23 July 1979, the applicant was notified by his company commander that separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph
5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program), was being initiated against him and that a general discharge was being recommended.  The reasons for the separation action cited by the company commander were the applicant’s inability to adjust to military discipline and lack of motivation in the performance of his duties.  The applicant was also informed that he had the right to decline the discharge and to submit statements in his own behalf.

6.  The applicant acknowledged that he had received the separation notification and indicated that he was voluntarily accepting discharge from the Army and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.  The applicant also acknowledged that he understood that if he received a general discharge, he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and acknowledged that he had been provided the opportunity to consult with a Judge Advocate General Corps officer.  

7.  The applicant’s company commander completed an endorsement forwarding the separation action to the approving authority.  On 16 August 1979, the lieutenant colonel, serving as Commander, 2nd Squadron, 6th Cavalry (Lightning Brigade), U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, Fort Knox, Kentucky, approved the separation action and directed that the applicant receive a General Discharge Certificate.


8.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty, issued to the applicant on the date of his discharge, confirms that he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 (SPD JGH), under honorable conditions.  Item 16a (Primary Specialty Number and Title) shows the applicant was awarded MOS 19J1O (Armor Crewman) on 23 June 1978, but did not have an evaluation score (i.e., “ES-None”).  Item 26 (Decorations, Medal, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) shows he was awarded the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with (.45 Caliber) Pistol Bar.  This document also shows that at the time of his discharge (on 21 August 1979) the applicant had completed a total of 1 year, 5 months, and 8 days net active service this period.  

9.  The applicant's military service records document no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

10.  There is no evidence showing the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board requesting a change regarding the reason or character of service of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

11.  The Federation of American Scientist (FAS) Military Analysis Network at: 
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm provides, in pertinent part, information on the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT).  This website states that the M1 Abrams MBT is the namesake of the late General Creighton W. Abrams, former Army Chief of Staff and commander of the 37th Armored Battalion.  Three versions of the Abrams tank are currently in service:  the original M1 model, dating from the early 1980s; and two newer versions, designated M1A1 and M1A2. The M1A1 series, produced from 1985 through 1993, replaced the M1’s 105mm main gun with a 120mm gun and incorporated numerous other enhancements, including an improved suspension, a new turret, increased armor protection, and a nuclear-chemical-biological protection system.  Although fielded in 1980, the M1 Abrams MBT remained untested for over 10 years.

12.  Army Regulation 611-201 (Personnel Selection and Classification - Enlisted Career Management Fields and Military Occupations Specialties), with an effective date of 1 September 1981, in pertinent part, provided for award of MOS 19K (XM1 Armor Crewman) with 5 skill levels (i.e., 1 - 5).  The lowest skill level (i.e. 19K1O) was authorized for award to Soldiers in the rank of private and describes the main required duties as “drives tank, loads, and fires main gun.”

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time of the applicant's separation from active duty, provided the authority for separation of enlisted Soldiers upon expiration of term of service (ETS); authority and general provisions governing the separation of enlisted Soldiers prior to ETS to meet the needs of the Service and its members; procedures for implementation of laws and policies governing voluntary retirement of enlisted Soldiers of the Army by reason of length of service; and the criteria governing the issuance of honorable, general, and under other than honorable conditions discharge certificates.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-31, provided the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  The Expeditious Discharge Program provided for the separation of Soldiers who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army. This document shows, in pertinent part, an enlisted Soldier may be separated under the provisions of the EDP when they fail to respond to counseling for one or more of the following conditions:  poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, and/or failure to demonstrate promotion potential.  An honorable discharge or general discharge could be issued under this program.  

14.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JGH” as the appropriate codes to assign enlisted Soldiers involuntarily discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, Chapter 5 (Expeditious Discharge Program), paragraph 5-31, based upon failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.

15.  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.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, that his general discharge under honorable conditions should be upgraded to an honorable discharge because he was the best at his MOS; he knew more about the M1 Abrams MBT than anyone; and he was the best in his battalion, both mentally and physically.  The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered; however, he provides insufficient evidence in support of his claims.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was awarded MOS 19K (M60A2 Armor Crewman).  There is no evidence the applicant was the honor graduate of his AIT class in MOS 19J, there is no evidence he received a certificate of achievement or an award at that time of his graduation from AIT, nor is there evidence that he received accelerated advancement to the grade of private (E-2) upon completion of his training in MOS 19J.  In addition, the evidence of record indicates the applicant was not tested in his MOS in order to receive an evaluation score in MOS 19J.  Thus, the evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contention that he “was the best at [his] MOS.”

3.  The evidence of record shows the M1 Abrams MBT was fielded in the early 1980s and that enlisted Soldiers trained and qualified in the operation of the M1 Abrams MBT were awarded MOS 19K (XM1 Armor Crewman).  The evidence of record also shows that applicant was discharged on 21 August 1979 and his MOS was 19J1O (M60A2 Armor Crewman).  Thus, the evidence of record does not support the applicant’s claim concerning the M1 Abrams MBT.

4.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s company commander recommended his discharge under the EDP based upon the applicant’s inability to adjust to military discipline and lack of motivation in the performance of his duties.  Thus, the evidence of record does not support the applicant’s claim that he “was the best in [his] battalion:  physically and mentally.”

5.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation in effect at the time.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicant’s rights were protected throughout the separation process.  The evidence of record further confirms that the applicant voluntarily consented to the discharge and his character of service accurately reflects his relatively short and undistinguished record of service.


6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x____  ____x____  ____x____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  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.

2.  In his application, the applicant requests a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty).  The Board requests that the Case Management Services Division - St. Louis provide the applicant a copy of his DD Form 214.




      __________x____________
                CHAIRPERSON


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080001069



2


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