IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:    27 August 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130001742 


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 honorable.

2.  The applicant states that the type or character of his discharge was wrongfully based on situations that were occurring in his unit that were not to be exposed.  He was used as a tool to divert attention from these issues.  The character of his service was exceptional until he began to question situations that were occurring. Suddenly he was accused of letting his duties fall behind and his performance was below standard.  He was basically rushed out of the military.

3.  The applicant did not provide any 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 October 1975.  He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 76P (Materiel Control and Accounting Specialist).  The highest rank he attained was private/E-2.

3.  He had received four nonjudicial punishments under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice and been counseled on eight separate occasions.

4.  On 13 July 1976, his immediate commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him because his record and his performance during advance individual training were unacceptable for further military service due to his inability to adapt to the discipline of military life.  The commander further stated the applicant's conduct and attitude had rapidly deteriorated and future disciplinary problems would only result from retaining him.  The commander recommended a general discharge.

5.  The applicant consulted with counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation.  He acknowledged the effect on future enlistment in the Army, the possible effects of a general discharge under honorable conditions, and the procedures and rights available to him.  The applicant further acknowledged he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he were issued a general discharge.  He submitted a statement on his own behalf in which he states that he was proud to have served in the Army.  He had no grudge against anyone other than himself for letting things "get this far."  It might have been possible for him to have had a future in the Army, but like many others he must try it on the outside.  He voluntarily consented to the discharge.

6.  On 9 August 1976, the separation authority approved the discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

7.  The applicant was discharged on 13 August 1976 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37.  He completed 9 months and 24 days of creditable active service.

8.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-37, in effect at the time, provided that members who completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who demonstrated 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 may be discharged under the Expeditious Discharge Program.  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 or 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.

10.  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.  There is no available evidence to substantiate the applicant's assertions as to his treatment while serving on active duty.

2.  The applicant demonstrated he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of his inability to adapt to military life.  Accordingly, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him.  He did not raise his current contentions at the time.

3.  His separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  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 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)                                         AR20120006183



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130001742



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1