IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 15 March 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110019386
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 an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable.
2. The applicant states he was led to believe his discharge would be changed to an honorable discharge after 3 years.
3. The applicant provides no additional 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 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 February 1977 for a period of 3 years. He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 05B (radio operator).
3. On 24 August 1977, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty.
4. On 6 October 1977, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty (two specifications).
5. On 18 April 1978, the applicant was notified of his pending separation for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention under the Expeditious Discharge Program under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-31. The unit commander cited:
* the applicant's poor attitude
* the applicant's lack of self discipline and motivation
* the applicant's continued immature and anti-social behavior
* the applicant's failure to demonstrate promotion potential
6. On 24 April 1978, he acknowledged notification of his proposed discharge, voluntarily consented to the separation, and elected not to make a statement on his behalf. He also acknowledged he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if issued a general discharge and he had been provided an opportunity to consult with counsel.
7. On 8 May 1978, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.
8. He was accordingly discharged on 15 May 1978 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. He completed a total of 1 year, 3 months, and 7 days of total active service.
9. There is no evidence in the available records that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5, in effect at the time, provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential could be discharged. It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary. Issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate was predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member's current enlistment with due consideration for the member's age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
11. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. He contends he was led to believe his discharge would be changed to honorable after 3 years. The U.S. Army does not now have nor has it ever had a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.
2. His record of service included two NJP's. As a result, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
3. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he failed to do so.
4. The type of discharge directed and the reasons were therefore appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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 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) AR20110019386
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110019386
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008296
The commander stated he was recommending that the applicants service be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. Individuals discharged under the provisions of this paragraph may be awarded an honorable or general discharge. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015371
On 14 February 1978, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) in accordance with chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel). The applicant's immediate commander recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of the EDP and the separation authority approved his discharge and directed that he be furnished a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020656
On 28 February 1979, a warrant officer in the applicant's unit recommended his expeditious discharge from active duty under the provisions of chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) because of a poor attitude/lack of motivation, lack of self discipline, failure to show promotion potential, and inability to adapt socially. f. He further stated he and his family wanted the action granted as expeditiously as possible. Such personnel were issued a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008748
The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. On 27 September 1978, the applicant's commander recommended the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program) for the convenience of the government. The applicant contends his general discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge because he was sexually assaulted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023350
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to a fully honorable discharge. On 29 August 1978 subsequent to a review by the Command Judge Advocate for legal sufficiency, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service and directed receipt of a General Discharge Certificate. The evidence of record shows the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9506200C070209
He states he was discharged with known disabilities; mental and physical. PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 24 July 1981. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001359
On 28 June 1978, the applicants immediate commander initiated separation action against the applicant under the provisions of paragraph 5-31 of Army Regulation 635-200. Army Regulation 635-200 provides that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant voluntarily consented to his discharge under the Expeditious Discharge Program.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081254C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Had he not consented to his discharge and continued to demonstrate that he could not and would not meet acceptable standards required of all enlisted personnel in the U.S. Army, his conduct could have led to separation under other provisions of laws and regulations. Based on the applicant's record of indiscipline, the Board determined that his quality of service did not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016223
On 4 May 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge action and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate. On 24 May 1979, he was accordingly discharged. The pertinent paragraph in chapter 5 provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000864
The applicant's immediate commander notified him that he intended to recommend his discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)), by reason of poor attitude, lack of self-discipline, and failure to demonstrate promotion potential. 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...