IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  13 January 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100017751 


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 he was only 18 years old and under a lot of stress which caused his problems [while on active duty].  His discharge should reflect his overall service which was honorable.  His discharge makes it difficult to get employment and qualify for veterans benefits.

3.  The applicant provided no additional evidence.

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 records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 December 1977 at the age of 17 and held military occupational specialty 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist).  The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3.

3.  On 3 May 1979, he was notified by his immediate commander that discharge action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 5, for his inability to adapt socially or emotionally and evidence of a social/emotional maladjustment.  The commander stated the applicant had been counseled on five different occasions regarding his unacceptable behavior and that he was recommending the applicant be given a general discharge.

4.  On 4 May 1979, he acknowledged notification of his proposed discharge from the Army.  He consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effect on future enlistment in the Army, the possible effects of a general under honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  He voluntarily consented to this discharge.  He further acknowledged that he understood if he were issued a general discharge, he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

5.  On 8 May 1979, the separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, and directed the issuance of a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate).  On 15 May 1979, he was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed a total of 1 year, 4 months, and 16 days of creditable active service.

6.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

7.  Chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged under the Expeditious Discharge Program.  



It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary.  No member would be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge.  Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate was predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member's current enlistment with due consideration for the member's age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

8.  Army Regulation 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 or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant demonstrated that he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel as evidenced by the counseling he received on five occasions for his inability to adapt socially or emotionally.  Accordingly, his commander initiated separation action against him.  

2.  He voluntarily consented to his discharge and his separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation therefore were appropriate.  Based on his record, his service does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

3.  Records show he was 18 years of age at the time of his discharge.  However, there is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

4.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans or other benefits.





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)                                         AR20100017751





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100017751



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1