BOARD DATE:	  16 April 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120017197 


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, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).  

2.  The applicant states he had an agreement with his captain for an honorable way out of the military.  However, his commander processed him for an expeditious discharge.  He claims his service was honorable and would like his discharge to reflect that.  

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his request. 

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 record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 
10 April 1974.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).   The record shows he was advanced to private/E-2 on 10 August 1974, and that this is the highest rank he held while on active duty.  It also shows he was reduced to private/E-1 for cause on 7 March 1975.  

3.  The record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  His disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following three separate occasions for the offenses indicated:

   a.  28 September 1974, failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; 

	b.  7 January 1975, absent without leave (AWOL) from 19 November through 5 December 1974; and

	c.  7 March 1975, disobeying a lawful order and being disrespectful in deportment toward a noncommissioned officer in the execution of his duties.

4.  On 13 May 1975, the unit commander notified the applicant he was initiating action to separate the applicant under the provisions of paragraph 5-37, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel) under the expeditious discharge program (EDP).  He further informed the applicant he was recommending the applicant receive a GD.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s poor performance, poor attitude, total lack of motivation, lack of dependability, and continual AWOLs as the basis for taking the action.  

5.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and after having been advised of the basis for the contemplated separation and its effects, the rights available to him and the affects of a waiver of those rights, the applicant voluntarily consented to the discharge and waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

6.  On 5 June 1975, the applicant’s discharge was directed in Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood Special Orders Number 111.  The orders specified the applicant would be issued a GD.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) issued to the applicant at the time shows he was discharged on 
10 June 1975, in the rank of private/E-1.  It also shows he was issued a GD after completing a total of 1 year, 1 month, and 15 days of creditable active military service with 17 days of time lost due to AWOL.  
7.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-37 contained the policy and outlined procedures for separating individuals under the EDP.  The EDP provided for the separation of Soldiers who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel.  An HD or a GD could be issued under this program.  

8.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states 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.  The applicant’s request to upgrade his GD to an HD has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this request. 

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable law and regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

3.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  However, it does contain documents confirming the applicant accepted NJP on three separate occasions.  The misconduct represented in these NJP actions clearly diminished the applicant’s overall record below that of meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Therefore, the GD issued by the separation authority was proper and equitable at the time and there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support an upgrade of his discharge now.  As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the 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)                                         AR20120017197



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120017197



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1