IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  29 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110023879 


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 discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

* he realizes the reason he was given a general discharge was because he did not complete his 4-year enlistment
* his father had a car dropped on his head when he [applicant] was a junior in high school and then he joined the Army to support himself and have a career
* he enlisted when he was 19 years of age in February 1978 and he was discharged on 20 June 1979
* he was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance abuse issues; he has been sober since and working on his mental health issues; he stopped drinking in 1980 after spending 3 days in detoxification
* he got a job in 1979 and worked there until September 1981; he went to school for cabinetmaking and got a job at Liberty Carton Company in 1984 and worked there until October 2011
* he would like his discharge upgraded to help him find a new job

3.  He provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty).


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’s military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-2 on 24 February 1978, for 4 years.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Fire Direct Specialist).  He was advanced to pay grade E-3 on 26 October 1978.

3.  On 12 March 1979, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being drunk and disorderly while performing duty on 3 March 1979.  

4.  On 4 May 1979, a bar to reenlistment was initiated against the applicant for unsatisfactory conduct.  The applicant's unit commander stated the applicant:

* had been drunk and disorderly on duty as the Assistant Charge of Quarters
* a suspension of reduction was vacated for missing extra duty
* had a distinct attitude problem and refused to recognize non-commissioned officer (NCO) authority
* had been counseled on numerous occasions for failing to get out of bed, clean his room, and for disrespect to NCOs
* was incapable of performing satisfactorily without constant, direct supervision
* had a drinking problem and was resisting rehabilitative efforts
* was an unacceptable burden to the chain of command and the unit

5.  On 8 May 1979, the applicant‘s company commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP), with a general discharge.  The company commander stated the reasons were the applicant’s poor attitude, lack of motivation and self-discipline, quitter attitude, clearly substandard performance, and lack of cooperation with peers and supervisors.  The applicant was advised of his rights.

6.  On 8 May 1979, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation action.  After consulting with counsel, he waived his rights, consented to the proposed discharge action, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He acknowledged that if he was furnished a general under honorable conditions discharge he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.

7.  On 15 May 1979, the bar to reenlistment was approved.

8.  On 25 May 1979, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  His behavior was found to be normal.  His level of alertness was found to be fully alert with a level mood and his thinking process was clear.  His thought content was normal and his memory was good.  The examining medical doctor found no significant mental illness and the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and able to adhere to the right.  He determined the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings and met the retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3.

9.  On 20 June 1979, the appropriate separation authority directed the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service, with a general discharge.

10.  He was discharged from active duty, in pay grade E-2, on 28 September 1979, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, with a general discharge.  He was credited with completing 1 year, 3 months, and 27 days of active service and no time lost.

11.  On 28 September 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

12.  On 28 April 1983, in response to his inquiry, the applicant was advised that he was barred from reenlistment on 15 May 1979 and subsequently discharged under the EDP for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-31 provided for the discharge of enlisted personnel whose performance of duty and potential for continued effective service fell below the standards required in the Army.  Individuals discharged under this regulation could be issued a general or honorable discharge.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

15.  Army Regulation 40-501 governs the medical fitness standards for retention and separation, including retirement.  Paragraph 3-33 states that anxiety, somatoform, or dissociative disorders are causes for referral to an medical evaluation board for persistence or recurrence of symptoms sufficient to require extended or recurrent hospitalization; or persistence or recurrence of symptoms necessitating limitations of duty or duty in protected environment; or persistence or recurrence of symptoms resulting in interference with effective military performance.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was punished under Article 15 for being drunk and disorderly on duty.  A bar to reenlistment was approved against the applicant in May 1979 based on his distinct attitude problems, inability to perform satisfactorily without direct and constant supervision, his drinking problem and resistance of rehabilitative efforts.  A mental status evaluation of the applicant found no significant mental illness and that he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and able to adhere to the right.  

2.  The applicant's unit commander initiated action to separate him because of his poor attitude, lack of motivation, and lack of cooperation with peers and supervisors.  While his drinking problem was addressed , there is no documented history of chronic PTSD during in his period of service which would have been assessed and dispositioned through medical channels nor prevented the completion of his term of enlistment.

3.  His contentions have been noted; however, he has provided no evidence or a convincing argument to show his discharge should be upgraded and his military record contains no evidence which would entitle him to an upgrade of his general discharge.  There is an absence of evidence to support his contentions that any medical or personal conditions prevented his satisfactory completion of service.  The evidence shows his misconduct and unsatisfactory performance diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
4.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The applicant voluntarily accepted discharge under the provisions of the EDP in lieu of disciplinary or administrative separation under other provisions of law or regulations.  He acknowledged he understood the ramifications of a general under honorable conditions discharge and he had the opportunity to consult with legal counsel prior to accepting discharge.  He was again advised of the reason for his discharge in April 1983.

5.  His service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

6.  His desire to have his general under honorable conditions discharge upgraded to an honorable discharge for employment reasons is acknowledged.  However, the ABCMR does not grant relief solely for the purpose of an applicant qualifying for employment or other programs.

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)                                         AR20110023879





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110023879



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1