BOARD DATE: 12 December 2013
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130007243
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 fully honorable.
2. The applicant states his company commander guaranteed him that he would receive an honorable discharge upon leaving Germany. He wanted to appeal the discharge but did not find the time.
3. The applicant provides a self-authored letter explaining the circumstances surrounding his discharge and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).
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 16 December 1970 for a period of 3 years. He completed basic training at Fort Lewis, Washington, and advanced individual training as a radio relay and carrier attendant at Fort Gordon, Georgia, before being transferred to Germany on 23 August 1971.
3. On 2 November 1972, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for missing movement with his unit.
4. On 22 February 1973, NJP was imposed against him for operating a privately-owned motor vehicle without a U.S. Army Europe motor vehicle operator's license.
5. On 25 July 1973, NJP was imposed against him for failing to obey a lawful general order by signing a legal rental contract without proper authority and for disobeying a lawful order to report for a urinalysis.
6. On 27 July 1973, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to bar him from reenlistment. As the basis for his action, he cited the applicant's record of NJP; unsatisfactory conduct and efficiency; five positive urinalysis tests; below standard military appearance, bearing and courtesy; and overt hostility to the military environment.
7. The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and the battalion approved the bar to reenlistment.
8. The applicant departed Germany on 3 November 1973 and was transferred to a drug rehabilitation program at Brooke Army Medical Center in El Paso, Texas.
9. On 23 November 1973, he was discharged under honorable conditions as a member of a medical holding detachment who was not going to reenlist (separation program designator code 412). He completed 2 years, 11 months, and 8 days of active service.
10. A review of his official records failed to reveal any individual decorations or completion of any training that resulted in the award of a proficiency badge, such as airborne, air assault, or ranger training.
11. There is no evidence in the available records to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's
15-year statute of limitations.
12. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) serves as the authority for separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation in effect at the time provided that the characterization of service would be determined solely by the member's military record and behavior. It also provided that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded to fully honorable has been noted and appears to lack merit.
2. NJP was imposed against the applicant no less than three times, he had positive urinalysis for drugs no less than five times, and he was barred from reenlistment. Accordingly, his service did not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge and he failed to provide sufficient evidence or argument to show otherwise.
3. In the absence of evidence to show his service warranted a fully honorable discharge, there appears to be no basis to grant his request for an upgrade.
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) AR20130007243
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130007243
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014296
The applicant states that his discharge was too harsh for the misconduct for which he was discharged. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant's contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they are not supported by either the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002300
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. On 17 May 1973, a bar to reenlistment was initiated against him because of his record of NJP, outstanding debts, and insufficient support to his dependents. If the bar was lifted before he departed his unit for discharge, he could be eligible for an honorable discharge and reenlistment in the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013784
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. On 3 December 1985, the applicants commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, due to alcohol and drug abuse rehabilitation failure. There is no evidence in his official records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057265C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general discharge. He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 29 August 1976.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004689
The applicants military service records show no evidence that the applicant was notified by the U.S. Army that a mistake was made regarding his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time of the applicant's separation from active duty, set policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013394
On 27 April 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct and directed he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant was accordingly discharged on 5 May 1987. His DD Form 214 confirms he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct - drug abuse with an under honorable conditions (general) character of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013047
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015562
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086257C070212
The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 20 April 1973 and was diagnosed as having a character and behavior disorder (immature personality). On 7 May 1973, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability based on a personality disorder. RECOMMENDATION : That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000551
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 July 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110000551 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Accordingly, his punishment was not disproportionate to the offenses for which he was convicted and he failed to show sufficient evidence or reasons to warrant an upgrade of his discharge based on clemency.