BOARD DATE:	  15 March 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100022527 


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 his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and that his reenlistment (RE) codes be changed.

2.  He willingly enlisted at age 17.  In November 1971, he was involved in a vehicle accident at Fort Jackson, SC and he suffered a head injury that was not properly medically treated.  His work performance decreased, he was relieved from driving, and he was unable to perform his duties correctly.  He was arrested, but the charges were later dropped.  However, this arrest caused him to be absent without leave (AWOL) 3 days.  After being returned to Fort Jackson orders were cut for Vietnam.  His injury caused him to drink more and abuse pain pills, so his performance was lacking.  He was sent to see a counselor whose only question was what he wished to do since he had enlisted and was not drafted into the service.

3.  He also states the counselor stated he either had to go to Vietnam, Germany, or go home.  The pain that he had experienced the last couple of months and the trouble that he had been in helped him to decide to go home.  He asked for a discharge thinking he could return after treatment.  He did not know he had been assigned RE codes of 3 and 3B until 2 years later when he tried to reenter the military.  He would have completed his period of service if he had not suffered the head injury.




4.  He provides:

* DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge)
* A completed DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States)

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.  On 28 May 1971, he was inducted into the Army of the United States.  On the date of induction he was age 17 years and 1 month.  He completed the training requirements and he was awarded military occupational specialty 64C (Light Vehicle Driver).  He was advanced to pay grade E-2 on 28 September 1971.  

3.  An AGUZ Form 368 (Report of Morning Report Search), for the period 22 to 24 November 1971, shows he was arrested and confined in the SC city jail for larceny of an automobile on 22 November 1971.  He was returned to duty on 24 November 1971 pending trial on 10 January 1972.

4.  On 12 January 1972, the applicant's unit commander advised the applicant of the conditions that were jeopardizing his promotion advancement and that he could be discharged under the provisions of the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) as stated in Department of the Army (DA) Message 242110Z, September 1971, Subject:  Extension of QMP to grade E-1 to E-2 with a general discharge, if he failed to demonstrate the standards of conduct and ability required of military personnel.  The applicant's commander stated the following conditions were jeopardizing the applicant's promotion advancement:

     a.  Actions taken:  The applicant was moved to supply to determine if he was capable of performing as a 76A (Supplyman).  The applicant was returned to driving duties on 11 January 1972.

     b.  Counseling and advice given:  That he had demonstrated little initiative and was showing little potential.  That he was being returned to driving duties, that he should apply himself to the job, drive defensively and within posted speed limits.  He had to demonstrate that he wanted to stay in the Army; therefore, he should perform as best as he possibly could.

5.  On 12 January 1972, he acknowledged he understood the actions and conditions which were jeopardizing his promotion advancement.  He also acknowledged he understood the impact of his failure to demonstrate the standards of conduct and ability required by the Army included discharge action.

6.  An undated statement indicates the applicant's unit commander also stated the applicant was eligible for promotion to pay grade E-3 on 28 January 1972; however, the promotion was denied because of the applicant's inability to perform duties in an acceptable manner.  The applicant's potential for retraining was limited.

7.  On 26 January 1972, the applicant's unit commander certified the applicant was unsuitable for reenlistment and should be barred.  The unit commander stated the applicant had a record of poor performance since being assigned to that unit on 5 November 1971.  The applicant's performance of duty was below the minimum standard required in the military.  The applicant's potential for retraining was very limited due to his lack of ability and aptitude for learning.  The applicant was being processed for elimination form the service under the QMP.

8.  On the same day, the applicant acknowledged receipt of a Certificate of Unsuitability for Reenlistment.  He also acknowledged he understood that action could have an effect on the type of discharge later awarded.

9.  On 28 January 1972, the applicant's unit commander recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separations), due to failure to qualify for and attain promotion, with a general discharge.

10.  On 28 January 1972, the applicant's brigade commander recommended approval of the applicant's separation.  The brigade commander stated the applicant had consistently performed in a substandard method and he had no potential to develop into an acceptable Soldier.  The applicant lacked pride in either himself or his work.

11.  On 7 February 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation for failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement with a general discharge.  

12.  On 11 February 1972, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 4, for failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement, with a general discharge, in pay grade E-2.  He was credited with completion of 8 months and 17 days of net active service and he had lost time from 22 through 23 November 1971.  Item 15 (RE Code) contains RE codes 3 and 3B.

13.  The available military records do not indicate he sustained a head or any type of injury during his period of service.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 13-2a(6) and 13-2d provide for discharge of individuals if their potential for advancement or leadership was unlikely.  Paragraph 13-10 stated the service of Soldiers separated under this authority would be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military records.

15.  Army Regulation 600-200, then in effect, in pertinent part set forth policy and prescribed procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP.  That program was based on the premise that reenlistment was a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement met Army standards.  It was 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 non-progressive and nonproductive Soldiers, and encourage Soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.  DA Message 242110Z, September 1971, extended the provisions of the QMP to allow for the early separation of Soldiers in the grades of E-1 and E-2 who had failed to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement.  

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor.  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 inappropriate.

17.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program), then in effect, provided prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals would be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Chapter 3 of the regulation included a list of Armed Forces reentry codes, including Regular Army RE codes.  RE-3 applied to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification was waivable.  
RE-3B applied to persons who had lost time during their last period of service, but the disqualification was waivable.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant completed training and was awarded an MOS.  On 28 January 1972, he became eligible for promotion to pay grade E-3.  This promotion was denied because of his inability to perform duties in an acceptable manner.  He was subsequently counseled on being a substandard Soldier, barred from reenlistment, and he was being processed for elimination.  The available evidence does not indicate the applicant sustained a head injury or any type of injury that affected his ability to serve.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The records contain no indication of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized his rights.  The evidence shows he was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with regulations and policies then in effect.  

3.  His record of service shows he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for an honorable discharge.  His entire record of Army service was considered.  He has provided no evidence or a convincing argument to show his discharge should be upgraded and his military records contain no evidence which would entitle him to an upgrade of his general discharge.  

4.  On 11 February 1972, he was discharged and assigned RE codes of 3 and 3B.  An RE Code of 3 applied to persons not qualified for continued Army service and RE-3B applied to persons who had lost time during their last period of service.  The applicant's RE codes are commensurate with his service record.  The applicant's RE codes are waivable.

5.  The available evidence does not support 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.



      _______ _ 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)                                         AR20100022527



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100022527


2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1