IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  27 June 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120021316 


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 under other than honorable conditions discharge.

2.  The applicant makes no statement.

3.  The applicant provides Congressional correspondence.

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.  After having had a prior period of honorable active service, on 31 August 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Georgia Army National Guard (GAARNG) for a period of 5 years, 6 months, and 9 days, in the rank/grade of specialist four (SP4)/E4.
3.  On 11 July 1981, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failing to follow the prescribed convoy route from Fort Gordon, GA to the National Guard Armory at Milledge Road in Augusta, GA on 7 June 1981.

4.  Georgia National Guard (GA NG) Forms 0001 (Letter of Instructions – Unexcused Absence) shows the applicant had the following unexcused absences for his multiple unit training assemblies (MUTA's):

* 20 September 1981
* 5 December 1981
* 6 March 1982
* 6 June 1982
* 10 and 11 July 1982

5.  A GA NG Form 0001, dated 21 July 1982, shows the applicant was notified that unless his 10 and 11 July 1982 MUTA absences were excused, he would have accrued 9 unexcused absences within 1 year.

6.  On 2 July 1982, the applicant was reduced from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3 due to being absent without leave (AWOL) on 6 June 1982.

7.  On 2 August 1982, the applicant was reduced from pay grade E-3 to E-2 due to inefficiency and being AWOL.

8.  A review of the applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR), formerly known as the official military personnel file, shows numerous returned mail addressed to the applicant from his GAARNG unit.

9.  On 3 August 1982, by mail, the applicant was notified of the commander's intent to initiate separation action against him.  The notification action was mailed to the applicant's last known address via certified mail with restricted delivery and return receipt requested.

10.  A statement signed by the applicant's commanding officer, dated 8 October 1982, shows:

* the applicant failed to provide any information concerning his unexcused drill absences
* the applicant did not seek legal assistance as was provided for him

11.  On 8 October 1982, the applicant's commanding officer requested and received approval to transfer the applicant to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) due to his unsatisfactory participation in MUTA's scheduled by his unit.
12.  On 2 November 1982, the applicant was released from the GAARNG and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training) under the provisions of Army Regulation 136-178 (ARNG and Army Reserve – Separation of Enlisted Personnel), chapter 7 (Unsatisfactory Performance of Statutory Obligated Member).

13.  Item 8d (Character of Service) on the applicant's available National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) is blank.

14.  The complete facts and circumstances of the applicant's service in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) are not available.  Orders Number D-05-902645 issued by the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center, St. Louis, MO, dated 21 May 1984, show he was discharged from the U.S. Army Ready Reserve with an under other than honorable conditions discharge on 21 May 1984.

15.  On 21 November 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

16.  Army Regulation 135-178, in effect at the time, set forth policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of ARNG and USAR enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons.  Chapter 7 of the regulation in effect at the time governed separation for misconduct.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  

17.  Army Regulation 135-91 (Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment,
Participation Requirements, and Enforcement Procedures) governs service obligations of members of the Reserve Components.  This regulation states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when he or she accrues nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills during a one-year period.

18.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic policy for the separation of enlisted personnel:

	a.  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.


	b.  Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge was carefully considered.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The applicant has provided no evidence that would indicate the contrary.  Further, it is presumed that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for 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)                                         AR20120021316



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120021316



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1