BOARD DATE:	  3 September 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130002160 


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 under honorable conditions to fully honorable.

2.  He states he wants an upgrade so he can receive his Illinois Veteran Grant (IVG) to attend school and to match his discharge certificate which states "Honorable."

3.  He provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), a letter, and his Honorable Discharge Certificate.

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 17 July 1981 for a period of three years.  

3.  A review of his service record revealed derogatory information which shows:

	a.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on 3 June 1982 for failing to go at the time prescribed to his place of duty.

	b.  He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 6 April 1983 of committing an assault upon a private first class by striking him in the right side of the face with a beer bottle and did thereby intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm upon him.  

4.  On 21 April 1983, he was assigned to the U.S. Army Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley, KS. 

5.  On 31 May 1983, the unit commander notified him of the proposed recommendation to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He was advised of his rights.  He consulted with legal counsel and did not submit statements in his own behalf.

6.  On 16 June 1983, the separation authority waived rehabilitation and counseling and directed the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with service characterized as general under honorable conditions.  The applicant was transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve to complete his military service obligation.  

7.  On 17 June 1983, he was released from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training) to complete his Reserve obligation.  At the time of his separation, he had completed 1 year, 10 months, and 16 days of active military service with 15 days of lost time.

8.  He was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve on 16 July 1987.  

9.  His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.


10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 13 provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander's judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

	b.  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 contention regarding his desire to have his discharge upgraded to attend school is acknowledged.  However, there are no provisions in Army regulations that allow the upgrade of a discharge for the sole purpose of securing veteran's benefits.  The applicant must provide evidence to prove the discharge was rendered unjustly, in error, or that there were mitigating circumstances.  

2.  Although he provided a certificate which shows he was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve on 16 July 1987, this document alone is insufficient as a basis to warrant an upgrade.

3.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

4.  His service record shows he received one Article 15 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, one conviction by a summary court-martial for assault, and a record of lost time for 15 days.  


5.  It appears the separation authority determined the applicant's overall service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty to warrant recommendation of a fully honorable discharge and characterized his service as general under honorable conditions characterization at the time of his release from active duty.  He has not presented sufficient evidence which warrants changing the general to a fully honorable characterization of service.

6.  The evidence of record does not indicate the actions taken against him were in error or unjust.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting his request.

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)                                         AR20130002160





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130002160



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1