BOARD DATE:	  1 December 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110010319 


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 that his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he would like his discharge upgraded so that his family has something to remind them of him.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) and a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) computer printout.

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 19 February 1971, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76A (Supply Clerk).

3.  On 18 October 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment for being absent without leave for 4 days.

4.  On 16 March 1972, the applicant was advanced to specialist four, pay grade E-4, in MOS 76W (Petroleum Supply Specialist).

5.  On 27 December 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.

6.  On 7 January 1974, the applicant departed Fort Stewart, Georgia for duty in the Federal Republic of Germany.

7.  On 3 July 1974, the applicant was counseled by his company commander concerning his disinterest with military duties and a lack of initiative resulting in his inefficient job performance.  He was told to set goals and to use his chain of command to assist him in his career planning.  The applicant acknowledged the counseling and said he would make an effort to improve his performance.

8.  On 8 July 1974, the commander noted the applicant had failed to seek positive action concerning his previous counseling and a bar to reenlistment was initiated.

9.  On 23 September 1974, the applicant was again counseled by his company commander concerning certain acts of inefficiency on 3, 8, and 15 July and on 
8 August 1974.  On these dates he had shown his superiors a serious disinterest in service life and an apathetic approach towards his duties.  He was informed that continued behavior of a similar nature could result in his elimination from the U.S. Army due to unfitness or unsuitability.  The applicant indicated that he had read and understood the counseling and elected not to make a statement.

10.  On or about 23 September 1974, the commander notified the applicant of his intention to separate him from the service for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 13.

11.  The commander subsequently recommended that the applicant be eliminated from the service due to unsuitability because of his inaptitude.  The commander cited the applicant's counseling and attempts on several occasions to motivate him with detailed guidance.  The applicant failed to take positive action and remained an unqualified petroleum handler.   The commander requested waiver of the requirement of rehabilitation because the applicant had resisted all attempts to be rehabilitated.

12.  On 24 September 1974, the applicant consulted with counsel, elected to request counsel, waived personal appearance before a board of officers, and did not make a statement in his own behalf.

13.  A Report of Mental Status Evaluation dated 26 September 1974 indicates 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 impression of significant mental illness.  He was mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong.

14.  On 8 October 1974, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that he be issued DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate).

15.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 15 October 1974.  He had completed a total of 3 years, 7 months, and 19 days of creditable active duty service and had accrued 4 days of lost time due to AWOL.

16.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200:

	a.  Chapter 13, applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability.  At that time, paragraph 13 provided for the separation of individuals for unsuitability whose record evidenced apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and an inability to expend effort constructively.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted a General Discharge Certificate was normally issued.

	b.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his general, under honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded to honorable because he wants something to remind his family of him.
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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  Based on the applicant's disinterest with military duties and a lack of initiative resulting in his inefficient job performance, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20110010319





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110010319



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1