IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       18 AUGUST 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090004146 


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 an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because he was not properly evaluated at the time for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  

3.  In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), dated 22 September 1967, and a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

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 show he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA), in pay grade E-1, on 18 Jul 1963, for 3 years.  He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 131.00 (Armor Crewman).  He was advanced to pay grade E-3 on 22 April 1964.  He was reduced to pay grade E-2 on 7 May 1964 based on punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and again advanced to pay grade E-3 on 24 June 1964.

3.  The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 24 September 1964, for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 25 September 1964 for 3 years.  He was promoted to pay grade E-4 on 10 December 1964.  He served in Vietnam from 14 January 1966 to 22 January 1967.

4.  On 12 January 1967, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, of the UCMJ, for not being ready for inspection on 8 December 1966.  His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-3 and a forfeiture of $55.00 per month for one month.  He did not appeal the punishment.  

5.  On 15 May 1967, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, of the UCMJ, for disobeying a lawful order on 10 May 1967.  His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-2, a forfeiture of $15.00 pay per month for one month, and 14 days restriction and extra duty.  He did not appeal the punishment.

6.  On 21 July 1967, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, of the UCMJ, for absenting himself from his unit on 26 June 1967.  His punishment included a forfeiture of $70.00 pay per month for two months and
60 days restriction to the company area without suspension from normal duties.  He did not appeal the punishment.  

7.  The applicant was discharged on 22 September 1967, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separations), chapter 2, Section VI, at the expiration of his term of service, with a general, under honorable conditions, discharge.  He was credited with 4 years, 2 months, and 5 days of total active service.

8.  The applicant submits a copy of a letter from the VA, dated 19 August 1999, that shows he was awarded a 100 percent service-connected disability on 21 April 1997 and his wartime service-connected disability was totally disabling.  The letter also stated that he served in the U.S. Army from 18 July 1963 to
22 September 1967 and he received an honorable discharge.

9.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 2, then in effect, established policy and prescribed procedures for separating personnel who had completed the period of service for which enlisted, inducted, or ordered to active duty.  The separation authority could direct a general discharge if such a discharge was merited by the Soldier's overall record.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, provided that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention has been noted.  However, the evidence of record shows that although the applicant had completed his normal tour of duty, it appears that his overall record, to include several punishments under Article 15 and reductions from pay grades E-4 to E-2, warranted separation with a general discharge.  It appears the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.  

2.  Based on the available evidence, there is no basis for the upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument that his award of a 100 percent service-connected disability from the VA warrants a fully honorable discharge for his period of service from 25 September 1964 to 22 September 1967. 

3.  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)                                         AR20090004146



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090004146



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1