IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 15 July 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080007023
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 that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states that it has been more than 30 years since his discharge and he feels his discharge should be upgraded. He contends that he was told after ten years he could get his discharge upgraded.
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 applicants 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 applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant enlisted on 28 September 1973 for a period of 3 years. He successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 95B (military police).
3. Between 9 April 1974 and 19 November 1974, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on five occasions for failure to repair.
4. On 18 December 1974, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability due to apathy.
5. On 19 December 1974, the applicant consulted with counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived a personal appearance, and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf. He also acknowledged that he understood he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event a general discharge was issued to him.
6. On 30 December 1974, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the issuance of a general discharge.
7. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 6 January 1975 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability due to apathy. He had served a total of 1 year, 3 months, and 9 days of creditable service.
8. On 21 September 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request for an honorable discharge.
9. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness or unsuitability. Chapter 13, in pertinent part, provided for discharge due to unsuitability because of apathy, defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively. The regulation stated that when separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge would be issued as warranted by his military record.
10. 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 members service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
11. The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. A discharge upgrade is not automatic.
2. Since the applicants record of service included five nonjudicial punishments, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
3. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulation with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he failed to do so.
4. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___xx___ ___xx___ ____xx__ 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.
_ _______ xxxx____________
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) AR20080007023
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080007023
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005639
The unit commander recommended elimination action because of the applicant's apathy indicated by lack of motivation and sub-marginal performance of duty. There is no evidence the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. It appears the chain of command determined that the applicant's overall military service did not meet the standards for an honorable discharge as defined in Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010764
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. However, his DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged with a general discharge on 19 March 1958 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability. 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 | CY2008 | 20080006114
When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected to show he was discharged from the Army on 21 April 1970 with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). _ _xxxx__ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026349
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants 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. Based on his overall record, the applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007708
On 14 March 1972, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080007708 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080007708 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001256
The regulation stated when separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as appropriate by the member's military record. Although the applicant contends he was separated due to no disciplinary action, the available evidence shows he was counseled on three occasions for failure to be at his appointed place of duty and he received two NJPs. _______ _ __x_____ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002481C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 September 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050002481 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. The unit commander recommended that the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers to determine whether he should be discharged before his expiration of his term of service. He had completed 1 year,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010718
On 7 December 1971, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's discharge for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for character and behavior disorder and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service were to be determined solely by the individual's military record during the current enlistment. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010616
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. _______ _ 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011675
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 November 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100011675 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). When separation for unsuitability was warranted an HD or a GD was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individuals entire record.