IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  25 February 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130011695 


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 that his general, under honorable conditions, discharge from the Army of the United States (AUS) be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he had lost days that resulted in his receiving nonjudicial punishment (NJP).  He was given to understand that once he completed his 
2 years of service plus the 3 lost days, the lost days would be voided.  His date of release was originally 8 January but it was changed to 11 January, thus making up the 3 lost days.  Now, he is being denied automobile insurance because of his general, under honorable conditions characterization of service.  He completed his full two years of active duty.

3.  The applicant provides copies 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's aptitude test scores taken on 17 October 1958 were for the most part below the normal standards.  On 9 January 1959, he completed the Armed Forces Qualification Test, scoring a 17 which placed him in category IV.

3.  The available records show that the applicant was inducted into the AUS on 
9 January 1959 and was immediately assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri for his initial training.

4.  On 15 January 1959, the applicant was assigned to the 3rd Training Regiment where he received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings.

5.  On 9 February 1959, the applicant was identified as being a sub-standard Soldier because he did not possess the required minimum aptitude area scores.  The applicant's commander was informed that each case must be weighed on its own merits, giving due consideration to the needs of a smaller Army, wherein money, time, and training can only be expended on individuals who are able to absorb training and subsequently adequately perform and progress in the military fields in which trained.  The applicant's company commander and battalion commander recommended he be eliminated from the service.  On 20 February 1959, the recommendation was approved.

6.  On 3 April 1959, the applicant was reassigned to Detachment 1, Trainee Replacement Company, where he remained until 4 June 1959.  During this period, he was advanced to private, pay grade E-2.

7.  On 16 June 1959, the applicant was assigned to Fort Devens, MA for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 550.00 (Supply Handler).

8.  On 25 September 1959, the applicant was reassigned to the 631st Quartermaster Company for duty as a supply handler.  On 7 October 1959, he was advanced to private first class, pay grade E-3.

9.  On 19 October 1959, the applicant was awarded MOS 550.00.

10.  Records show the applicant accepted NJP on or about 18 April 1960 and again on or about 16 May 1960 for being absent without leave (AWOL) for a total of 3 days.  He was reduced to private, pay grade E-2 on 16 May 1960.


11.  DA Form 24 (Service Record), section 4 (Chronological Record of Military Service) indicates that the applicant's conduct and efficiency was rated as excellent, except for a 6-month period ending on 22 September 1960, when his conduct was rated as "UNS" and his efficiency was rated as excellent.

12.  On 11 January 1961, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR).  He had completed his full active duty requirement of 2 years.  His DD Form 214 indicates the reason for his release was completion of his enlisted term of service (ETS).  He was given a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service.

13.  Letter Orders - E, Office of the Adjutant General, Department of the Army, dated 31 December 1964, announced the discharge of the applicant from the USAR Standby.  The reason for his discharge was ETS.  He was issued a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate).

14.  There is no indication in the record that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) as currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 4 provides the policy for the separation of Soldiers upon completion of their term of service or fulfillment of their service obligation.  Army policy states that Soldiers separated under this chapter of the regulation will be awarded an honorable discharge unless they are in an entry-level status.

16.  Army Regulation 135-178 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel) provides that the service of Soldiers who are transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve will be characterized the same as when they were separated from the United State Army.

17.  Department of Defense Directive 1332.28, dated 11 August 1982, subject: Discharge Review Board Procedures and Standards, establishes uniform policies, procedures, and standards for the review of discharges or dismissals under title 10, United States Code, section 1553, and applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Military Departments.  Section 4 of that directive sets forth the objectives for discharge review.  It provides that a discharge shall be deemed equitable unless the policies and procedures under which the applicant was discharged differ materially from those currently in effect, provided that the current policies or procedures represent a substantial enhancement of rights and there is substantial doubt that the same result would have been obtained under the current standards.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his general, under honorable conditions, discharge from the AUS should be upgraded to honorable because he served his entire 2 years, to include his 3 days of lost time.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant served on active duty until his ETS, which included making up the 3 days of lost time.  He managed to do this despite his being identified as having substandard aptitude scores resulting in his being recommended and approved for elimination.  Furthermore, his efficiency was rated as excellent for his entire term of service as was his conduct, except for the period that included his 3 days of AWOL.

3.  The evidence indicates that the applicant was given a general characterization of service based on his two incidents of AWOL, totaling 3 days.  While this characterization may have been appropriate at the time, it is unduly harsh by today's standards.

4.  Although DOD Directive 1332.28 provides policy for review of discharges by discharge Review Boards, it would be appropriate that this Board adopt and apply the standards set forth in this directive for this particular case.

5.  Accordingly, in view of the current standards for discharges for individuals who complete their term of service, a discharge under honorable conditions would be unduly harsh.  Therefore, it would now be appropriate to correct the inequity by correcting the applicant's DD Form 214 to show he received an honorable characterization of service.

6.  On 31 December 1964, the Office of the Adjutant General, Department of the Army, discharged the applicant from the USAR Standby.  The reason for his discharge was ETS.  However, it appears that he was again given an under honorable conditions characterization of service based on his period of active duty.  Accordingly, it would be appropriate to also correct this order and to issue him a new discharge certificate showing his service as honorable.

7.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be granted.



BOARD VOTE:

____X___  ____X___  ___X__ _  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

	a.  correcting his DD Form 214 to show his characterization of service as honorable;

	b.  amending Letter Orders E, dated 31 December 1964, or to publish new orders, to show his type of discharge from the USAR as Honorable; and

	c.  issuing him an Honorable Discharge Certificate for his service in the United States Army.




      _______ _  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)                                         AR20130011695





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130011695



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1