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