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 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 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 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.  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