IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 6 November 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120007452
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 (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD) and copies of his diploma from the communication radio repair school and his company commander's statements be forwarded to him.
2. The applicant states there was no injustice in his discharge; he just wishes to have his discharge upgraded. He needs the documents and upgrade of his discharge to improve his chances for additional Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.
3. The applicant provides no supporting documentation.
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 served on active duty in the Regular Army from 24 November 1975 through 15 February 1978 in military occupational specialty (MOS) 31B (Communication Electrical Equipment Repairman).
3. The record does not contain a copy of his MOS completion certificate. On 24 February 1994, the National Archives and Records Administration notified the applicant of this fact and that duplicates could not be furnished.
4. The applicant's only Enlisted Evaluation Report of record states he has the potential to be an excellent field radio mechanic; however, he does only what he is told to do and nothing else. He requires constant supervision and had reported late for work formations on many occasions.
5. The applicant received nonjudicial punishment on three separate occasions for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.
6. The available service medical records do not reveal any treatment for medical or mental problems that would mitigate his actions.
7. On 17 January 1978, his command initiated separation actions under Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separation), chapter 5 for a lack of motivation, self-discipline, and inability to adapt emotionally.
8. The applicant acknowledged and concurred with the separation action and declined to submit a statement on his own behalf.
9. The separation authority approved the discharge and directed he receive a GD.
10. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 15 February 1978 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions. He was credited with completing 2 years, 2 months, and 22 days of active service.
11. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within the 15-year statute of limitations of that board.
12. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
a. Paragraph 5-37 of the regulation, in effect at the time, provided for the discharge of enlisted personnel who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions: poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential. No individual would be discharged under this program unless the individual voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge. Individuals discharged under this regulation were normally issued either a GD or HD.
b. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an HD is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. 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 Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant was previously notified that the requested diploma is not available and a reissue cannot be provided.
2. The applicant does not clearly identify what other documents he is requesting. If he wishes a copy of any documents contained in his military record the appropriate agency to contact is the National Personnel Records Center as the custodian of those records.
3. The applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded so that he can improve his chances for additional VA benefits. However, there are no provisions in Army regulations that allow the upgrade of a discharge for the sole purpose of securing veterans benefits. The applicant must provide evidence to prove the discharge was rendered unjustly, in error, or that there were mitigating circumstances which warrants the upgrade.
4. The evidence of record shows the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service. The applicant states there was no error or injustice in his discharge processing or the characterization of his discharge at the time of separation.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary 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 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) AR20120007452
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120007452
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023175
The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his general discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). An AE Form 113-10-R (Notification of Pending Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) Discharge and Acknowledgment) shows, on 8 November 1979, his commander notified him he was initiating action to discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31, with a GD. Such personnel were issued a general or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001014
On 9 January 1976, his unit commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program), with a recommendation for a general discharge. The applicant was discharged with a general discharge on 30 January 1976. The applicant has not provided any evidence that he has been denied any benefit or consideration as a veteran based on the terminology utilized on his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027034
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 June 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100027034 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023037
The applicant requests his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence of record in this case confirms the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100014793
Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 20 June 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 11, AR 635-200, by reason of entry level performance and conduct for lack of motivation, failure to adapt to military life, and disruptive behavior, with an uncharacterized discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 provides in pertinent part, that a Soldier is in entry-level status for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052915C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: On 3 September 1978, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (Expeditious Discharge Program(EDP)), with a GD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011845
The applicant requests an upgrade of his General Discharge (GD), under honorable conditions to a fully Honorable Discharge (HD). On 3 June 1975, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant 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)) with a GD, under honorable conditions. The separation authority approved the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100001263
On 10 July 1978, he was counseled by his unit commander and indicated that he desired a discharge. On 25 July 1978, his immediate commander advised him that he intended to recommend that he be discharged from the Army under the provisions of paragraph 5-33 (Trainee Discharge Program (TDP)) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of inability to adapt socially or emotionally to military life. At the time he was ordered discharged, the applicant was a member of the U.S....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019386
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable. 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. _____________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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013327
The immediate commander further recommended a general discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant voluntarily consented to his discharge under the Expeditious Discharge Program. The applicant was accordingly discharged.