IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  31 January 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110014942 


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, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).  

2.  The applicant states his age at the time of his military service and the environment he came from caused some youthful errors not of a criminal nature.  He states he lives an exemplary life now and his reputation in his community is upstanding.  

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his application.

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 record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 October 1969, and was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 51B (Carpenter).  He was advanced to specialist four/E-4, the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty, on 4 May 1971.  The record further shows he was reduced to private first class/E-3 for cause on 28 January 1972.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.   

3.  The applicant’s disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on four separate occasions between 10 April 1970 and 24 January 1972.  It also includes his receipt of a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 11 August 1971.  It further shows he accrued 61 days of time lost during two separate periods of being absent without leave (AWOL) between 8 February 1970 and 19 January 1972.  

4.  On 15 February 1972, the unit commander recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of paragraph 6b(3) (Unsuitability-apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively), Army Regulation 635-212 and that he receive a GD.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s duty performance characterized by apathy and repetitious absence from duty, and his failure to respond to counseling as the reasons for taking the action.  

5.  On 8 March 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge for unsuitability and directed he receive a GD.  On 16 March 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) he was issued at the time shows he completed 2 years, 2 months, and 18 days of creditable active military service.

6.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  It provided for separating members for unsuitability due to inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, and apathy (defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively).  A GD was normally appropriate.  The separation authority could issue an HD if supported by the member's overall record of service.  

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 3-7a states HD 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's request that his discharge be upgraded because it was based on youthful indiscretions not amounting to criminal behavior and because of his excellent post service conduct has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  The record confirms the applicant was sufficiently mature to complete his military service satisfactorily had he chosen to do so, as evidenced by his successful completion of training and advancement to SP4/E-4.  Further, although his post service conduct as he describes it is noteworthy, this factor alone is not sufficiently mitigating to support granting the requested relief. 

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  Further, the applicant's record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement and his disciplinary history which includes his acceptance of NJP on four separate occasions, a LOR, and his accrual of 61 days of time lost during two periods of AWOL clearly diminished the overall quality of service below that warranting a fully honorable discharge.  As a result, the GD he received accurately reflects his undistinguished record of service which did not support the issuance of an HD by the separation authority at the time and does not support an upgrade of his discharge to an HD at this late date.

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)                                         AR20110014942



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110014942



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1