BOARD DATE:	  5 September 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130002866 


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 honorable.

2.  The applicant states he was advised by his battalion commander that his discharge would change to honorable after 6 months.  He has been waiting for a letter or something telling him he could appeal his discharge.  This is a matter of honor and pride.  His son had passed away while he was serving on active duty, but he remained an honest and good Soldier.  All he wants is a certificate and a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reading honorable instead of general under honorable conditions.  It is a matter of pride for every Soldier to hang the certificate on the wall and to show it to his employer.  He begs for the Board's consideration of his request.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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.  On 27 January 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training as an armor crewman.  He was subsequently assigned for duty at Fort Carson, Colorado.

3.  The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on:

* 20 September 1982, for operating a vehicle while drunk
* 24 June 1983, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed

4.  On 29 June 1983, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  His behavior was found to be normal.  He was fully alert and oriented and displayed an unremarkable mood.  His thinking was clear, his thought content was normal, and his memory was good.  He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings, he was mentally responsible, and he met the retention requirements of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3.

5.  On or about 9 January 1984, the applicant's commander recommended his separation from the service for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13.  The commander stated the applicant apparently felt he had made a mistake by joining the Army.  He never seemed to fit.  He was obstinate to authority.  His personal appearance slipped dramatically and his military performance was nonexistent.  He had a drinking problem as evidenced by three incidents of driving under the influence of alcohol.  Since receipt of his NJP on 24 June 1983, he had been counseled on numerous occasions.  He has expressed a desire not to perform his military duties.  Therefore, the commander felt it was in the best interest of the Army to eliminate him from the service.

6.  On or about 9 January 1984, the applicant waived consulting counsel and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

7.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

8.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 2 February 1984.  He completed 2 years and 6 days of creditable active duty service.

9.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provides that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier in the commander's judgment.

11.  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 contends that his discharge should be upgraded because it is a matter of pride and honor.  He further contends that he was advised that his discharge would automatically be upgraded after 6 months.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for his discharge were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  The evidence of record shows the applicant received multiple NJP's and was counseled concerning his performance and misconduct.  The commander clearly stated the applicant desired to be separated from the service and that he did not want to be a Soldier.

5.  There is no policy, regulation, directive, or law that provides for the automatic upgrade of a less than fully honorable discharge from military service.

6.  There is no evidence of error or injustice in this case.

7.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.



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)                                         AR20130002866



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130002866



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1