IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 5 April 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110019144
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 from the Army National Guard (ARNG) be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states, in effect:
* He served honorably in Louisiana as a tank driver
* He took time off his civilian job several times because no one else would drive tanks across a bridge
* He served 6 years
* When he moved to Michigan he did not perform tanker duty, he thinks it was paratrooper duty
* He was not trained
* He did what he was told
* He went to all his drills
* He was told to clean
3. The applicant provides no documentary evidence.
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 Louisiana ARNG on 23 November 1979 for a period of 6 years. He served as an armor crewman and he was honorably discharged on 23 October 1984 for transfer to the Michigan ARNG.
3. He enlisted in the Michigan ARNG on 24 October 1984 for a period of
1 year.
4. His record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge. However, discharge orders show the applicant was issued a general discharge on 2 August 1985 under the provisions of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), paragraph 7-10r. He was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Individual Ready Reserve).
5. His National Guard Bureau Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) for the period ending 2 August 1985 shows he was discharged on
2 August 1985 with a general discharge under the provisions of NGR 600-200, paragraph 7-10r, for unsatisfactory performance.
6. On 24 April 1991, he was issued an honorable discharge from the Ready Reserve under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel).
7. 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.
8. NGR 600-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the personnel management of enlisted personnel of the ARNG. Paragraph 7-10r of this regulation stated that a Soldier would be discharged from the ARNG for unsatisfactory participation of members.
9. Army Regulation 135-178 provides for the separation of enlisted personnel of the Army Reserve and ARNG.
10. Army Regulation 135-178 provides, in pertinent part, that the honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the members service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty
for military personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
The applicant's contentions were carefully considered. However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed his separation processing was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Without the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate with his overall record of service. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
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) AR20110019144
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110019144
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000545C070206
The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which occurred on 1 January 1987, the date of his discharge. On 3 October 1986, the commander submitted a request through channels to the State Adjutant General requesting that the applicant be discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army National Guard Regulation 600-200, paragraph 7-10r, for unsatisfactory participation of members. On 1 January 1987, the applicant was discharged, under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013125
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 January 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090013125 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's National Guard Bureau [NGB] Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows that she was discharged on 5 December 1984 with a general discharge under the provisions of NGR 600-200, paragraph 7-10r for unsatisfactory performance. Evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions (a general discharge) from the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002123C070205
He requested the applicant be separated with a general discharge. The applicant was separated from the CTARNG, in pay grade E-2, on 4 December 1985, under the provisions of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, Paragraph 7-10r and Chapter 4, Section III, Army Regulation 135- 91, Unsatisfactory Participation, with more than 9 absences without leave (AWOL). The applicant's service at the time of his discharge from the CTARNG was characterized as general.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011956
COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 1 October 2008 shows he was honorably released from active duty in the rank of sergeant first class on 1 October 2008 under the provisions of NGR 600-5, chapter 6, for completion of required active service. It would be appropriate to void his discharge orders, dated 22 August 2008, correct his military records to show he completed over 20 years of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2000 | 2000041253
His NGB Form 22 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 7, Paragraph 7-10r, NGR 600-200 by reason of unsatisfactory participation with a characterization of service of general. The Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review. EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted by applicant
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012312
Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions), of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record Part ll), shows that he was reduced to pay grade E-3 effective 15 January 1987. The evidence shows that the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-4 on 27 September 1985. The evidence shows that he served in pay grade E-4 from 27 September 1985 until 15 January 1987, the date he was reduced to pay grade E-3.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012394
The applicant also submits a letter dated 29 January 2010 from the KYARNG Director of Administrative Service who states he conducted a review of the applicant's records and following discussions with the SJA and Personnel Directorate (J1), along with the state attorney and former SJA, he believes the applicant was summarily discharged from the KYARNG without appropriate due process. The applicant had 18 years of qualifying service for retired pay purposes at the time of his discharge from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016397
The applicant's military personnel record shows that he enlisted in the Army National Guard on 27 October 1977. The applicant was honorably released from active duty for training and transferred to the State of Michigan Army National Guard on 28 April 1978. He was issued a under other than honorable conditions discharge for misconduct under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management) and Army Regulation 135-178 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004481
COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. All separations, voluntary or involuntary, from the AGR program will be governed by the following regulations: ARNGUS soldiers, released from FTNGD, while serving in the AGR program under the provisions (UP) of 32 USC are subject to separation UP of AR 135175 (officers) or AR 135178 (enlisted), or as further provided UP NGR 6005. In the processing of this case, the Boards staff contacted the proponent of AR 135-178 who stated that this...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080008850
Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 31 December 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 8, paragraph 8-35j, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation for missing multiple unit training assemblies, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: General, Under...