BOARD DATE:	  15 April 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130014279 


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 under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.  

2.  The applicant states he served his country and he believes he should be given an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his request.

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 9 September 1980 for a 3-year term of service.  He successfully completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 76C (Equipment Records and Parts Specialist).  

3.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 
15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following dates:

* 4 November 1981 - for assaulting a fellow Soldier
* 4 November 1981- for possession of a switchblade knife
* 8 March 1982 - for using disrespectful language toward a noncommissioned officer (NCO)
* 2 July 1982 - for using disrespectful language toward an NCO, for destroying a windowpane that was the military property of the United States, and for being incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties due to prior indulgence in intoxicating liquor

4.  On 28 June 1982, the applicant’s commander submitted a request to discharge the applicant under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  The commander based his recommendation on the applicant's lack of self discipline and failure to adapt to the military way of life.  His receipt of four Article 15's for relatively minor offenses indicated his continued military service would only result in further conflicts with authority. 

5.  On 2 July 1982, the applicant acknowledged notification of the contemplated discharge action and voluntarily consented to the discharge.  He acknowledged that he had been provided the opportunity to consult with counsel and he waived his right to submit a statement in his behalf.

6.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation to administratively separate the applicant with a general discharge under the EDP.

7.  On 23 July 1982, the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 10 months, and 15 days of creditable active service.

8.  His DD Form 214 shows in:

* item 21 (Signature of Member Being Separated) – the applicant's signature
* item 24 (Character of Service) – "Under Honorable Conditions"
* item 25 (Separation Authority) – "PARA 5-31 AR 635-200"
* item 26 (Separation Code) – "JGH" 
* item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – "FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS FOR RETENTION (EDP)" 
9.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

	a.  Paragraph 5-31 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 that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of a poor attitude, a lack of motivation, a lack of self-discipline, an inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential could be discharged.  It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before a board or punitive action became necessary.

	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 request to upgrade his general discharge to an honorable discharge was carefully considered and it was determined there is insufficient evidence to support his request.  

2.  Records show the applicant was discharged from active duty for failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service.  During his brief period of service he received four NJP's.  Based on this indiscipline, the applicant’s service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel that are required for the issuance of an honorable discharge.  

3.  Absent evidence to the contrary it is concluded that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Therefore, the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.  His general characterization of service was, and is still, warranted.






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)                                         AR20130014279



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130014279



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1