IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    20 May 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090020656 


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 upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states the following:

	a.  He was in the military under the Carter Administration when the Army underwent massive cuts.

	b.  As an enlisted man he had to work a second job the entire time he was on active duty until he was fired for not showing up for work because he was placed on duty.

	c.  The Army's remedy was to extend his debt into another reenlistment.

	d.  These issues led to a disagreement with a warrant officer in 1978 regarding the warrant officer's assessment of enlisted Soldiers who seek early discharge.  The warrant officer started screaming at him and told him he was going to give an unfavorable assessment.

     e.  The applicant further states he came up for [assignment] to Germany but could not afford to use casual pay as a way out and that a freeze on E-4 promotions killed any remedy his company was trying on his behalf.  

3.  The applicant provides a copy of an official transcript of his scores on the General Educational Development Tests.
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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 March 1977.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty 74D (Computer/Machine Operator).

3.  The record shows the applicant was confined by civilian authorities during the period 1 October 1977 to 1 December 1977.  The record does not show the reason for his confinement.

4.  On 17 March 1978, the applicant was counseled for being late for duty and showing lack of interest in duty performance.

5.  On 2 May 1978, the applicant was counseled for missing formation and not being at the appointed place at the appointed time.

6.  On 1 February 1979 the applicant was counseled for not reporting for work on time.

7.  On 23 February 1979, the applicant was counseled for failure to attend a class.

8.  On 28 February 1979, a warrant officer in the applicant's unit recommended his expeditious discharge from active duty under the provisions of chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) because of a poor attitude/lack of motivation, lack of self discipline, failure to show promotion potential, and inability to adapt socially.  The warrant officer cited the following issues:

	a.  Because of personal problems, the applicant had not concentrated on learning his duties, displayed a nonproductive attitude, and an unmotivated attitude toward his military duties.  He had not progressed at the same rate as his contemporaries or met the expected rate of progress.

	b.  His civilian confinement caused legitimate financial problems.  However, his command's efforts to assist him, which included arranging to have him paid for the time he was confined and sending him to budget counseling, did not lead him to attempt to help himself overcome his financial problems. 

	c.  The applicant failed to show promotion potential because he was too emotionally involved in financial and family problems to effectively learn and perform his duties.

9.  On 1 March 1979, the applicant submitted a statement to his immediate commander requesting an expeditious discharge with an honorable characterization of service.  He stated the following:

	a.  He had learned much from the Army, but seemed to be a victim of a number of serious problems and had a number of extenuating circumstances.

	b.  His attitude had been positive in spite of some negligence on his behalf.

	c.  He had taken every course of action within reason.  His problems had started long ago and since going through his chain of command he seemed to have taken a step backward.

	d.  He and his family suffered many unpleasant circumstances in spite of the efforts of his fellow Soldiers and he seemed to have more problems than before he enlisted.

	e.  He and his family felt that they had placed too much priority on the Army and that priority should be placed where it is really needed.

	f.  He further stated he and his family wanted the action granted as expeditiously as possible.

10.  On 5 March 1979, the applicant was counseled for failing to be present for motor pool guard duty.

11.  On 6 March 1979, the applicant's immediate commander submitted a recommendation for discharge under the provisions of chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200.

12.  On 13 March 1979, the applicant acknowledged that he had been informed of the proposed discharge and voluntarily consented to the discharge.  He consulted with legal counsel, and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation and its effects, the rights available to him, the effect of a waiver of his rights, and the type of discharge and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment.  The applicant understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a general discharge under honorable conditions.

13.  On 15 March 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed that he receive a General Discharge Certificate.  On 
23 March 1979, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He completed 
1 year, 9 months, and 28 days of creditable active military service.

14.  There is no indication the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides guidance on characterization of service and states, in pertinent part, 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 or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

16.  Paragraph 5-31 of Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, provided for the Expeditious Discharge Program.  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, except that a recommendation for a general discharge had to be initiated by the immediate commander and the individual had to consult with legal counsel.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable was carefully considered and found not supported by the evidence in this case.

2.  The record shows the applicant voluntarily consented to discharge under the Expeditious Discharge Program.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  Based on his record of indiscipline, which includes being counseled on numerous occasions regarding duty performance and attendance and failure to resolve ongoing financial problems affecting his duty performance, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an 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)                                         AR20090020656





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090020656



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1