IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	    27 July 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110001913 


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.

2.  The applicant states he was not aware he had to request a change in the discharge.  He was a good Soldier, served with honor, and it was a chance of a lifetime.  He was told by his superiors that it would change automatically in
2 years.  

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active duty), Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 200, and a letter addressed to him from the National Personnel Records Center, St Louis, MO, dated 3 January 2011.

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 18 August 1978, completed training, and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 36K (Tactical Wire Operations Specialist). 

3.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part l) shows in:

	a.  item 5 (Oversea Service) that he competed a tour in Panama from 
21 November 1978 through 28 November 1980.	

	b.  item 9 (Awards, Decorations, and Campaigns) that he was awarded the Overseas Service Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, Good Conduct Medal, Army Achievement Medal, and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

	c.  Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) that he was advanced to specialist four effective 1 August 1980, and reduced to private first class effective 14 June 1982.

4.  On 14 June 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to obey a lawful order to go to the field.  His punishment was extra duty for 14 days and reduction to E-3 (suspended for 90 days).  The imposing authority vacated the suspended reduction after it was discovered that the applicant had written several dishonored checks. 
 
5.  On 2 September 1982, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being considered for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsuitability, due to apathy, defective attitudes and an inability to expend effort constructively; because his retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale.  His ability to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement, was unlikely.  The commander stated the following reasons for this action:

	a.  he was a totally substandard Soldier.

	b.  his on and off duty conduct were a disgrace to the Army.
 
	c.  NJP for failing to go to the field and discovery of dishonored checks. 

	d.  counseling by chain of command for financial irresponsibility. 

6.  The applicant consulted with counsel.  He acknowledged his rights and elected to not submit a statement in his own behalf.  

7.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

8.  Accordingly, he was discharged on 14 September 1982, with a general discharge.  He had completed 4 years and 27 days of total active service.

9.  On 8 December 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsuitability under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

11.  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 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 has not provided any evidence or sufficiently mitigating argument to warrant upgrade of his discharge.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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)                                         AR20110001913


4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1