IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 August 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110001425 


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 discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he served in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) where he came close to being wounded or killed.  He was subsequently assigned to Japan where he developed an "I don't care attitude" and he became a "not so responsible person."  He further states that his court-martial was due to his own fault.  Now he is 61 years of age and blessed with a lovely wife, children, and grandchildren.  He is just asking for an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge.  He still loves the military and prays for each serviceman and woman to return home safely.

3.  The applicant provides 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.  On 26 October 1966, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 70A (Clerk).

3.  Item 31 (Foreign Service) of the applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he served in:

	a.  the RVN from 6 October 1967 through 13 December 1968 and from
13 May through 26 September 1970;

	b.  the Federal Republic of Germany from 7 July 1969 through 18 April 1970; and

	c.  Japan from 3 December 1971 through 10 December 1973.

4.  On 6 April 1972, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for writing and presenting for payment six checks, each in the amount of $20.00, for which he had insufficient funds in his account.

5.  On 14 September 1972, the applicant's commander made a statement wherein he identified the applicant's letters of indebtedness, as follows:

* 14 April 1972 for failing to pay his German telephone bill of $740.00
* 4 and 28 February, and 21 March 1972 for a dishonored check notice from the Japan Regional Exchange in the amount of $50.00
* 17 February and 23 March 1972 for a delinquent loan account from Fort Sill, OK in the amount of $133.51
* 23 January, 24 March, and 9 August 1972 for a delinquent loan account from Fort Belvoir, VA in the amount of $100.00
* 22 May, and 9 and 15 August 1972 for failing to complete payments to H&R Sales, Los Angeles, CA in the amount of $235.00
* 23 May, and 14 and 21 August 1972 for failing to complete payments to Hollywood Diamond Exchange in the amount of $67.50
* 19 and 25 August 1972 for an insufficient funds check returned from American Express in the amount of $50.00


* 14 August 1972 for failing to support his dependents
* 28 August 1972 for three dishonored checks from the Navy Exchange in Japan in the amount of $50.00 each

6.  On 6 November 1972, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of making and uttering bad checks with a value of approximately $225.00.

7.  On 13 August 1973, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unfitness.

8.  On 15 August 1973, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.  He also waived representation by counsel.

9.  On 19 September 1973, at a mental status evaluation, the applicant's behavior was normal.  He was fully alert and oriented and displayed a level mood.  His thinking was clear, his thought content normal and his memory good.  There was no significant mental illness.  The applicant was mentally responsible.  He was able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and was capable of participating in the separation processing.

10.  On 16 October 1973, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness.  He cited the applicant's continued and chronic indebtedness and utterance of worthless checks.

11.  On 4 December 1973, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate).

12.  On 11 December 1973, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He had completed 7 years and 12 days of total active service.

13.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its statute of limitations.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at that time, applied to separation for unfitness which included a failure to pay just debts.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.


15.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant's continued and chronic indebtedness and utterance of worthless checks normally warranted an undesirable discharge for unfitness.  However, he was granted a less harsh general discharge.  Regardless, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the acceptable standards for Army personnel then or now that would warrant an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for 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)                                         AR20110001425



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110001425



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1