IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       4 JUNE 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090002723 


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 1975 general discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states he was young and influenced by the men returning from Vietnam.  He states he has dedicated his life to assisting veterans who have fallen “into the grips of addictions.”

3.  The applicant provides no additional 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.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant enlisted and entered active duty as a Regular Army Soldier on 13 August 1973.  He was 20 years old at the time and a high school graduate.

3.  Following completion of training as a military policeman, he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas in accordance with his enlistment contract.  By November 1973 he had been promoted to pay grade E-2.

4.  On 20 February 1974 the applicant departed AWOL (absent without leave).  While in an AWOL status, the applicant was apprehended by civilian authorities in Mineola, New York and charged with obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest.  There is no indication regarding the disposition of those charges and on 14 March 1974 the applicant returned to military control and was placed in military confinement until 15 March 1974.

5.  On 30 April 1974 the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL between 20 February and 14 March 1974, of failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 19 March 1974 and of assault with a deadly weapon.  His sentence included reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture, 30 days hard labor without confinement, and 30 days of restriction.

6.  As a result of the court-martial action, the applicant was reclassified from a military policeman to an armor crewman but remained assigned to Fort Hood.

7.  On 22 May 1975, the applicant’s company commander notified him of his intent to discharge him under the provisions of paragraph 5-37, AR 635-200, expeditious discharge program because of his inability to adapt to military standards of good order and discipline.  The commander specifically cited the following as the reasons for his recommendation:

   a.  habitual tardiness to formations
   b.  extremely poor attitude
   c.  lack of motivation/initiative
   d.  lack of self discipline
   e.  refusal to learn, or attempt to be trained in his now specialty
   d.  refusal to go to the field with his unit
   g.  insubordination toward noncommissioned officers
   h.  summary court conviction for AWOL and assault
   
8.  The applicant acknowledged notification on 2 June 1975.



9.  The commander’s request for discharge was forwarded through the chain of command to the approving authority.  On an unknown date, the request for discharge was approved with a GD.

10.  The applicant was discharged on 2 July 1975 after serving 1 year, 9 months and 28 days of his enlistment.  During that time, he received one Article 15, and was court-martialed.  He received a GD.

11.  There is no evidence available to indicate the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade during that board’s stature of limitations.

13.  AR 635-200 provides the policy and sets forth the procedure for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-37, then in effect, provided for the EDP.  This program provided for the discharge of individuals 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.  Such personnel were issued a general or honorable discharge, as appropriate.

14.  AR 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s argument that he was swept up in substance abuse as a result of association with Soldiers returning from the Vietnam War and that he was young was considered.  However, the evidence of record shows the applicant was a substandard Soldier who demonstrated a poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, and an inability to adapt socially or emotionally to the Army.  Because he could not or would not meet acceptable standards of conduct, his commander recommended that he be discharged under the EDP.

2.  The applicant has provided no proof, and the record does not substantiate, that he was unduly influence by anyone or that his youth impacted his ability to serve honorably.  Even if true, there is no evidence the applicant attempted to resolve his problems through his chain of command, chaplain, medical facility, or other valid support mechanism.
3.  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.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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.




      _______ _   ___xxx____   ___
               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)                                         AR20090002723





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090002723



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1