IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  19 October 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110008354 


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 honorable and his social security number (SSN) be corrected on his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).  

2.  The applicant states: 

* He was originally told his discharge would be upgraded in 6 months
* He recently learned his discharge was never upgraded
* His overall performance was satisfactory
* The SSN listed on his DD Form 214 is incorrect
* His SSN is 2xx-2x-3xxx

3.  The applicant provides:

* Two applications
* Social security card
* DD Form 214

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.  His enlistment contract lists his “SSN” as "9xx-0x-3xxx."  This was actually a temporary identification number (TIN).  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 July 1972 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 71B (Clerk Typist).

3.  On 5 March 1973 and 22 March 1973, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for failing to obey two lawful orders.

4.  On 4 April 1973, charges were preferred against the applicant for failing to obey a lawful order, breaking restriction, possessing hashish (two specifications), and failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty.  Trial by special court-martial was recommended. 

5.  On 12 April 1973, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  In his request he indicated he understood he could be discharged under conditions other than honorable and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA), and he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He also acknowledged he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge.  He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In summary, he stated:

* He was only 17 years old
* He joined the Army because he wanted to see different countries and meet different people but he only encountered people with drugs
* He had personal problems
* People wanted to fight him
* He would like to go to school to become a veterinarian
* He thought he could adapt to the military 

6.  On 30 April 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge.
7.  He was discharged under honorable conditions (a general discharge) on 
7 May 1973 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had completed 
10 months and 2 days of creditable active service.    

8.  Item 3 (SSN) of his DD Form 214 shows his SSN as "9xx-0x-3xxx."

9.  His service personnel records show his SSN as "9xx-0x-3xxx."  

10.  He provided a copy of his Social Security card which shows his SSN as "2xx-2x-3xxx."

11.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. 

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred.  Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service.  Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

13.  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.

14.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part it states that the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement or discharge.

15.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  He contends he was told his discharge would be upgraded in 6 months.  However, a discharge upgrade is not automatic.

2.  His brief record of service included two NJP actions and numerous offenses for which special court-martial charges were preferred against him.  As a result, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

3.  His voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  He contends the SSN shown on his DD Form 214 is incorrect.  It appears    he either did not have an SSN or could not verify his SSN at the time he enlisted, and so he was issued a TIN.  The TIN of "9xx-0x-3xxx" was used when he enlisted in the RA, upon his discharge in 1973, and throughout his service.

6.  For historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records.  The data and information contained in those records should reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created.  In the absence of a showing of material error or injustice, there is a reluctance to recommend that those records be changed.  While it is understandable the applicant desires to record the SSN he now uses in his military records, there is not a sufficiently compelling reason for compromising the integrity of the Army's records at this late date.



7.  The applicant is advised that a copy of this decisional document which confirms his correct SSN will be filed in his official military personnel file (OMPF).  This should serve to clarify any questions or confusion in regard to the difference in the SSN recorded in his military record and to satisfy his desire to have his current SSN documented in his OMPF.

8.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requests.

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)                                         AR20110008354



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110008354



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1