IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 8 March 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110017396
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 discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states, in effect:
* he was young and he did not know what he wanted out of life
* he is requesting an honorable discharge so that he can get a Veterans' High School Diploma through the Florida Department of Education
* he was told to apply to this Board for an upgrade of his discharge
3. The applicant provides a letter from the Florida Department of Education, dated 26 July 2011.
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 applicants 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 applicants 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 Regular Army on 21 November 1972. He completed basic combat training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and he was transferred to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on 2 February 1973, to complete advanced individual training.
3. He was counseled on 26 March 1973 for failure to go to morning formation.
4. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 16 May 1973 for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 23 April to 9 May 1973.
5. On 16 May 1973, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the Qualitative Management Program. His commander cited his duty performance and potential for continued service as the bases for his recommendation for discharge. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the recommendation on 16 May 1973.
6. On 31 May 1973, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.
7. On 8 June 1973, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) Message 24110Z (i.e., 242110Z) September 1971, for failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion. He completed 6 months and 3 days of active service.
8. A review of the available record does not show that the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.
9. The applicant submits a letter from the Florida Department of Education thanking him for submitting an application for participation in the Florida Veterans' High School Diploma Program. The letter informs him that the Commissioner of Education may award a standard high school diploma to honorably discharged veterans. He was also advised that due to the character of service shown on his DD Form 214 (under honorable conditions) his request was denied.
10. HQDA Message date-time group 242110Z September 1971, in effect at the time, contained the Army policy that authorized the separation of enlisted personnel for failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion or advancement.
11. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), 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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants contentions have been noted and his supporting evidence has been considered.
2. The fact that he desires to obtain a Veterans State of Florida High School Diploma is not a basis for upgrading his discharge.
3. The available evidence shows he was counseled on 26 March 1973 for failure to go to morning formation and NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 23 April through 9 May 1973. Therefore, the type of discharge he received appropriately reflects his overall record of service.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicants 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) AR20110017396
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110017396
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015496
On 16 July 1970, the applicant enlisted at 17 years of age in the Regular Army for 3 years. On 20 July 1973, the applicant, now 20 years of age, reenlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years beginning in the rank of sergeant, pay grade E-5, as an armor crewman. The applicant requested a personal appearance before the Board; however, since there is sufficient evidence on the record to fully consider this case, a formal hearing is not warranted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017791
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable. The applicants military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-1, on 8 December 1971, for 3 years. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076237C070215
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021897
Item 25 (Education and Training ) of the DD Form 214 does not include an entry showing he completed any training or testing in an effort to obtain his GED. Therefore, there is no basis upon which correct his DD Form 214 to show he obtained his GED Equivalency Diploma while he served on active duty and this portion of the requested relief is denied. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. adding the entry...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012672
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The Report Card and Form T-1 he provides indicate he obtained his GED on 15 May 1979, prior to his entry on active duty; however, this is not an official transcript and it is not verified by a record entry in Item 17 of his DA Form 2-1 or Item 16 of his DD Form 214, both of which he reviewed and authenticated at the time of his separation. In effect, his review of the DA Form 2-1 and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013820
The recommendation for separation was submitted on 24 September 1973 and the appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 6 November 1973 under the provisions of Department of the Army message date time group (DTG) 242110Z September 1971, Subject: Extension of QMP to grades E-1 and E-2, due to failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. He was properly issued a SPN of 21U to indicate...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105551C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his separation document (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect his correct Social Security Account Number (SSAN) and that he received a High School Equivalency Diploma based on successful completion of General Education Development (GED) tests. The applicant states, in effect, that he successfully completed the GED tests and was awarded a High School Equivalency Diploma in 1979. The evidence of record confirms the applicant completed GED testing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014147
The applicant requests his discharge be upgraded to honorable. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003889
Further, she had been consistently counseled on her inability to function and had continued to show no measurable improvement. On 20 March 1973, the applicant acknowledged that she had been counseled concerning her conduct and that she understood that she may be denied advancement to the rank of private first class/E-3 and eliminated from the service with an honorable or general discharge if her conduct failed to improve. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states an honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009070
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant states: a. his DD Form 214 shows he completed 11 years of education, but he completed 12 years. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: While it is commendable the applicant wants his children and grandchildren to be proud of his accomplishments, there is no corroborating evidence of record and he did not provide sufficient evidence to show he completed the 12th grade or that he was issued a high...