IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    18 October 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110006376 


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 under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he:

* was a 17-year old illiterate high school dropout 
* was immature
* did not deserve a general under honorable conditions discharge
* was overwhelmed and was lied to by his recruiter
* desires to be buried in a veteran’s cemetery

3.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored statements
* DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States)
* extracts from his military personnel records 

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 Army on 18 December 1972.   He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic).  The highest rank/grade he attained while on active duty was private/E-2.

3.  Records show the applicant was punished under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on 22 January 1974 for being absent without leave during the period 10 January through 15 January 1974.

4.  Records show the applicant was counseled on other indiscipline which included duty performance, barracks robbery, missing school, failure to perform physical training, and verbal threats.  

5.  On 20 February 1974, the applicant was notified by his commander of the intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsuitability.

6.  Having been advised by consulting counsel, he acknowledged the fact that he had been counseled regarding the basis for the contemplated separation, its effects, and the rights available to him.  He was also informed that if he was issued a general, under honorable conditions discharge, he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  

7.  On 22 April 1974, a board of officers met and recommended the applicant’s discharge with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

8.  On 2 May 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  The applicant's DD Form 214 confirms he was discharged accordingly.  He was credited with 1 year, 4 months, and 22 days of active service with 5 days of lost time.

10.  There is no evidence in the available record that indicates he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year 
statute of limitations.

11.  The applicant provided a DD Form 293, extracts from his military records, and self-authored statements regarding his attitude and behavior while he was on active duty.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic policy for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of his general under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge was carefully considered and determined to lack merit.

2.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Evidence clearly shows he was not responsive to the rehabilitative efforts of his command.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge.

3.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  His discharge appears to be appropriate based on the quality of his service.  His service was not consistent with Army standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.



4.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for an upgrade of a discharge solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans' benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge.  Additionally, granting of veteran's benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR.  Therefore, any questions regarding eligibility for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits should be addressed to the VA.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  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.




      _______ _   _______   ___
               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)                                         AR20110006376



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110006376



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1