BOARD DATE:	  27 August 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090007751 


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 to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he would like his discharge upgraded.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 13 February 1973 and Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Special Orders Number 28, dated 7 February 1973.

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 record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 16 October 1970.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was trained in, awarded, and served in military occupational specialty 94B (Cook) and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class (PFC).  His DD Form 214 shows that during his active duty tenure he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Parachutist Badge, the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar.

3.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and performance-related issues.

4.  On 18 January 1972, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 4 January 1972 through 6 January 1972 and disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer (NCO).

5.  On 26 January 1972, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for disobeying a lawful order from a superior NCO.

6.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was AWOL for the period 1 February 1972 through 2 March 1972.

7.  On 7 December 1972, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for being AWOL for the periods of 22 September 1972 through 25 September 1972, 24 October 1972 through 27 October 1972, and 16 November 1972 through 30 November 1972.

8.  On 14 December 1972, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was recommending him for separation due to his lack of potential for advancement under the provisions of Department of the Army message, dated 242110Z September 1971, subject:  Qualitative Management Program (QMP), and chapter 4, Army Regulation 600-200 (Qualitative Management Program).  The unit commander based his recommendation on the fact that the applicant would not be recommended for promotion and he had not shown the potential to rise above the rank of PFC.  The unit commander stated the applicant was substandard in the performance of any duty assigned him.  He required constant supervision no matter what task he was assigned.  The unit commander recommended the applicant receive a general under honorable conditions discharge.

9.  On 14 December 1972, the unit commander explained the QMP to the applicant and the facts, circumstances, and reasons for his recommendation that the applicant be eliminated from the U.S. Army under the program's provisions.  The unit commander informed the applicant that he had the option to attend or not attend a Project Transition course of his choice prior to being eliminated provided that he met the prerequisites for the course of his choice, and further provided that there was an opening available in the course of his choice.  The applicant chose not to attend any courses offered by Project Transition.  He further acknowledged that he understood the QMP and that he could be eliminated from the Army under the program's provisions.

10.  On 17 January 1973, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant receive a general under honorable conditions discharge under the provisions Department of the Army message, dated 242110Z September 1971, for QMP.  On 13 February 1973, the applicant was separated from the service after completing a total of 2 years, 2 months, and 4 days of creditable active service with 54 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

11.  Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), chapter 4, in effect at the time, set forth policy and prescribes procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP.  This program is based on the premise that reenlistment is a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement meet Army standards.  It is designed to enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, selectively retain the best qualified Soldiers to 30 years of active duty, deny reenlistment to nonprogressive and nonproductive Soldiers, and encourage Soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.  Department of the Army Message, dated 242110Z September 1971, extended the provisions of the QMP to allow for the early separation of Soldiers who had failed to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 3-7a, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel and 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 evidence of record confirms the applicant’s separation was due to his failure to show adequate potential for advancement as evidenced by his disciplinary history.  Further, his separation was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation in effect at the time, his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process, and his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

2.  The applicant's records show that he received three Article 15s and had five instances of AWOL during his enlistment.  He had completed 2 years, 2 months, and 4 days of creditable active service with 54 days of lost time.  Based on these facts, the applicant’s service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel which are required for issuance of an honorable discharge.

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.

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)                                         AR20090007751



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090007751



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1