BOARD DATE:	15 November 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110009763


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 discharge be upgraded from general to honorable and a new certificate issued.

2.  The applicant states he was a young officer in the Army and not wise with his money.  He made a mistake by borrowing around $1,000.  He got behind on the payments and his colonel sent word to his captain that the applicant would court-martialed if he didn’t agree to resign.  The applicant resigned and received a general discharge.  He states owing someone money and failing to pay had nothing to do with how good a Soldier he was.  He believes the colonel was wrong and he now wishes he had been a little older and wiser and had demanded his side be heard.  He is now almost 71 years old and has done quite well over the years.  He was going through his records and discovered his discharge was a general.  He would appreciate it if his discharge could be upgraded to honorable. 

3.  The applicant did not provide any additional documentation.

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’s records show that following 1 year and 8 months of enlisted service, he was discharged on 10 October 1960 to accept a commission.  He was ordered to active duty as a second lieutenant (2LT) on 11 October 1960.  

3.  He was assigned as a platoon leader at Fort Riley, KS, and later reassigned to Germany where he was promoted to first lieutenant (1LT).  He then returned to Fort Riley, KS where he served until his discharge.  

4.  On 7 December 1962, the applicant's battle group commander initiated a recommendation that the applicant be eliminated from the serviced due to numerous incidents involving irresponsible mismanagement of his personal financial affairs which brought discredit upon the service.  The recommendation was based upon numerous incidents of the applicant issuing bad checks and failing to pay creditors.

5.  On 18 February 1963, the applicant voluntarily tendered his resignation for the good of the service.  The applicant's request states he had been afforded an opportunity to appear before a board, with counsel, to present matters in explanation, mitigation, or defense of his case, and that he waived that right.

	a.  He acknowledged that if the resignation was accepted, he understood that he would not be entitled to readjustment pay.  He also understood that he may be furnished an Honorable, General, or Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate, as determined by Headquarters, Department of the Army.
 
	b.  He further acknowledged that he understood that, if accepted under other than honorable conditions, he would not be entitled to compensation for accrued leave or readjustment, and that he could be barred from all rights administered by the Veterans Administration, except War Risk or National Service Life insurances.

6.  On 20 March 1963, The Adjutant General, Headquarters, Department of the Army, approved the resignation and directed issuance of a general discharge. 

7.  He was discharged on 28 March 1963 in accordance with Army Regulation 635-120, section IV.  He had completed 2 years, 5 months, and 18 days of net active service during this period.
8.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge.

9.  Army Regulation 635-120 implemented the statutory provisions of Title 10, U. S. Code, governing active duty officer resignations and discharges.  Chapter 5 of this regulation provided that an officer could submit a resignation for the good of the service when court-martial charges were preferred against the officer with a view toward trial by general court-martial, the officer was under suspended sentence of dismissal, or the officer elected to tender a resignation because of reasons outlined in Army Regulation 635-100, paragraph 5-11a(7) (misconduct or moral or professional dereliction) prior to charges being preferred and prior to being recommended for elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-100.  The regulation provided that a resignation for the good of the service, when approved at Headquarters, Department of the Army, was normally accepted as being under other than honorable conditions.

10.  Army Regulation 635-100 (Personnel Separation - Officer Personnel) provides: 

   a.  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 officer'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.

   b.  a general discharge under honorable conditions is issued to an officer whose military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  His misconduct was not minor; it was repeated and chronic.  His resignation was not forced upon him; it was completely voluntary.  He was not denied a chance to be heard, he chose not to exercise that right.

2.  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.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for 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)                                         AR20100028962



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                      AR20110009763



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1