IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    14 July 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110000445 


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, in effect, that his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).  

2.  The applicant's statements are in large part incoherent.  It appears he is requesting, in effect, an upgrade of his GD based on the discharge being unjust because of being illegally charged and jailed by his commander.  

3.  The applicant provides a DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) and various self-authored statements in support of his application.  

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 record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 December 1974 and he was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (Field Artillery Crewman).  His record shows he earned no individual awards or decorations during his active duty tenure and documents no acts of valor or significant achievement. 

3.  The applicant’s disciplinary history shows he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on 
24 September 1975, for absenting himself from his unit on 18 September 1975, with the intent to avoid a field exercise.  It also shows he was counseled by members of his chain of command on 13 separate occasions for a myriad of disciplinary infractions including:

* His attitude (multiple)
* Substandard billets
* Being absent with leave (AWOL)
* Lack of cooperation
* Failure to repair
* Haircut (multiple)
* Job performance
* Missed field training exercise
* Discharge

4.  On 2 October 1975, the unit commander notified the applicant he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of paragraph 5-37, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) and that he was recommending the applicant receive a GD.  The unit commander cited the following reasons for taking the action.  Due to the applicant's failure to:

* Demonstrate promotion potential due to a lack of motivation, quitter attitude, and an inability to acquire noncommissioned officer skills
* Comply with instructions, directives and routine orders based on a total lack of self-discipline, and cooperation with peers and supervisors
* Maintain established standards of appearance and military bearing
* Adjust to procedures in the military and hostility towards the military
* Respond favorably to counseling

5.  On 2 October 1975, the applicant completed a memorandum in which he acknowledged notification of his proposed discharge.  He further stated he voluntarily consented to the discharge with full awareness that his commander had recommended and that he could receive a GD.  

6.  On 14 October 1975, the separation approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of the EDP and directed that he be issued a GD.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) the applicant was issued on
10 November 1975 shows he completed a total of 10 months and 13 days of active military service. 

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-37, then in effect, provided the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals under the EDP.  The EDP provided for the separation of Soldiers who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel.  An HD or GD could be issued under this program.  

8.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an HD 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 applicant's request for an upgrade of his GD because his discharge was unjust has been carefully considered.  However, the evidence is insufficient to support this claim.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation in effect at the time.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicant’s rights were protected throughout the separation process.  The record further shows the applicant voluntarily consented to the discharge after confirming he his commander had recommended that he receive a GD. 

3.  The applicant’s disciplinary history and record of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an HD.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief. 







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)                                         AR20110000445



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110000445



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1