IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080008328 


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, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions, discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant made no additional statement(s) in support of his request.

3.  The applicant provided no additional documentary evidence 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 applicant's service record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 November 1974.  He successfully completed his basic combat and advanced individual training at Fort Ord, California.  Upon completion of his training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).

3.  The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record, Part II, (DA Form 2-1) shows he was advanced to the rank and pay grade, Private/E-2, on 5 March 1975.  This would be the highest rank and pay grade he would attain while he served on active duty.  His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

4.  The record shows the applicant was counseled by members of his chain of command for leaving a large sum of money in his wall locker which was stolen.  He then submitted a false official statement and swore falsely misrepresenting the sum of money that had been taken in his report to investigators of the Criminal Investigations Division.  The applicant was also counseled for his substandard, unsatisfactory performance of duty.

5.  At the time the applicant was being processed for discharge, three members of the command – two senior noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and a captain - were compelled to write statements about the applicant's substandard personal appearance, his working relationship with his peers, his poor attitude toward the Army, his uncooperativeness, his lack of self-discipline, his lack of motivation, his inability to follow instructions or totally ignoring what he was told, and his lack of concern and interest in carrying out his responsibilities.  He was described as someone who had to have someone watch him constantly to ensure that he did his job.

6.  On 24 November 1975, the applicant's unit commander notified him of his intent to initiate action to discharge him from the Army, under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program, and that he was recommending that he receive a general discharge.  The unit commander cited the following reasons for his proposed action:  the applicant had been counseled several times for sloppiness on duty, his attitude towards the Army was unsatisfactory, and he needed to be watched continually to ensure that he did his job properly and on time.

7.  On an unspecified date, the applicant acknowledged the notification in writing and indicated that he voluntarily accepted discharge from the Army.  The applicant acknowledged that if he were furnished a general, under honorable conditions, 

discharge, he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  The applicant also acknowledged that he had been afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel.  The applicant was given an opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf; however, he declined to do so.

8.  On 1 December 1975, the applicant's unit commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the Army under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program, and that he receive a general, under honorable conditions, discharge.  The unit commander stated that the applicant was inapt in nearly everything he did and he was unable to conform to basic military standards.

9.  On 11 December 1975, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program and directed that the applicant receive a general, under honorable conditions, discharge.  The applicant was discharged accordingly on 24 December 1975, in the rank and pay grade, Private/E-2.  On the date he was discharged the applicant had completed 1 year, 1 month, and 20 days service, with no time lost.

10.  The DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, the applicant was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-37.  Item 9.e. (Character of Service), of the applicant's
DD Form 214 shows his service was characterized as, "under honorable conditions."  Item 9.f. (Type of Certificate Issued), of the applicant's DD Form 214, shows he was issued a General Discharge Certificate.

11.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-37, then in effect, provided the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals under the Expeditious Discharge Program.  The Expeditious Discharge Program provided for the separation of Soldiers who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards for service required of enlisted personnel.  An honorable or a general discharge could be issued under this program.







DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record an 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.

2.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions, to a fully honorable discharge was carefully considered; however, the applicant provided no evidence or argument upon which an upgrade of his discharge could be based.

3.  The applicant's record shows that he was counseled by members of his chain of command for having submitted a false official statement and swearing falsely to investigators in the performance of their official duties.  The applicant was also counseled for his substandard, unsatisfactory performance of duty.  The applicant's unit commander, in his recommendation for the applicant's discharge stated that the applicant was inapt in nearly everything he did and he was unable to conform to basic military standards.

4.  At the time the applicant's discharge was being processed, his conduct and performance of duty were so contrary to Army standards that three members of the command – two senior NCOs and a captain - were compelled to write statements about his substandard personal appearance, his working relationship with his peers, his poor attitude toward the Army, his uncooperativeness, his lack of self-discipline, his lack of motivation, his inability to follow instructions or his ignoring what he was told and his lack of concern and interest in carrying out his responsibilities.  He was described as someone who had to have someone watch him constantly to ensure that he did his job.

5.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulation in effect at the time.  The evidence also shows that the applicant voluntarily consented to the discharge and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and it appears his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions, discharge to a fully honorable discharge.

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 that 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)                                         AR20080008328



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080008328



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1