BOARD DATE:	  27 June 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120020656 


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 an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

* his service was honorable
* he went through a devastating breakup with his wife which affected his ability to perform his duties
* his section sergeant confined him to quarters for 2 weeks, denying his daily requests to see a physician about his anxiety, depression, panic attacks, and thoughts of suicide and homicide
* his records contain sufficient evidence showing his honorable service prior to 12 April 1982, when life as he knew it ended -- his wife and son were gone
* he intended to make the military a career
* he has always felt the general discharge that he received was punishment for something that was out of his control
* he was only 20 years old when the incident occurred and he was not mature enough to handle the situation

3.  The applicant does not provide additional evidence in support of his application. 



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 26 August 1980.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 68G (Aircraft Structural Repairman).  The highest rank/grade he attained while on active duty was private first class/E-3.

3.  On 16 October 1981, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for:

* failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on or about 0700 hours on 30 September 1981
* failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on or about 0600 hours on 5 October 1981

4.  On 19 February 1982, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to bar him from reenlistment.  The applicant's commander cited the following counseling sessions as the basis for his action:

* 19 May 1981, for being late for formation
* 20 May 1981, for missing formation
* 3 June 1981, for failure to repair
* 22 June 1981, for failure to repair and being late for formation
* 20 July 1981, for failure to repair
* 9 September 1981, for missing formation
* 10 September 1981, for being absent from duty
* 4 December 1981, for being missing from guard duty

5.  On 23 February 1982, the applicant's bar to reenlistment was approved.


6.  The complete facts and circumstances of the applicant's separation action are not available.  Additionally, his medical records are unavailable and he does not provide copies of them.

7.  On 22 March 1982, his immediate commander advised him that he intended to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of paragraph 5-31, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), due to Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) (Failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention).  The commander also indicated that he was recommending the issuance of an honorable discharge.

8.  On 12 May 1982, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training).  His DD Form 214 shows:

* he completed 1 year, 8 months, and 17 days of creditable active military service
* he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31h(1)
* his narrative reason for separation was EDP "failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention"

9.  On 27 April 1983, the ABCMR denied the applicant's request to change his reenlistment code.

10.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The pertinent paragraph in chapter 5 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 under the EDP.  It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary.  No member would be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge.  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. 
12.  On 1 April 1982, an Interim Change to Army Regulation 635-200 eliminated the requirement to obtain the Soldier's consent for separation under the provisions of the EDP.  

13.  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.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of his general discharge was carefully considered.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant continuously displayed a lack of self-discipline and inability to conform to military rules as evidenced by an extensive history of counseling sessions and two instances of NJP.  Accordingly, his chain of command initiated separation action against him under the EDP.  His separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  With respect to his arguments, contrary to his contention, his service was marred by misconduct throughout his military service.  His records do not show he was discharged because of any reason related to his wife; he was discharged due to a lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, and failure to demonstrate promotion potential.

4.  His overall record of service shows he displayed an inability to adjust to the regimen of military life or respond to counseling.  Based on his overall record, his service does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.








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)                                         AR20120020656



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120020656



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1