BOARD DATE:	  15 May 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130015492 


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 characterization of service be changed to honorable.  

2.  He states he had difficulty adapting to a military environment due to his age, education level, and poor, hardworking family background.  He realizes the error of going absent without leave (AWOL), and he has been an honest, dependable, hardworking citizen.  

3.  He provides 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.  On 27 May 1969, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States at 19 years of age.  Item 10 (Education) of his DD Form 47 (Record of Inductions) shows he had completed 8 years of civilian education prior to induction.

3.  He completed initial entry training, and he was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  

4.  Item 44 (Time Lost Under Section 972, Title 10, U.S. Code and Subsequent to Normal Date Expiration of Term of Service) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was:

* AWOL/dropped from the rolls (DFR) from 3 November 1969 to 20 April 1970
* AWOL from 4 May to 22 October 1970
* confined from 2 November 1970 to 31 January 1971
* AWOL from 18 to 26 February 1971

5.  The complete facts and circumstance of his discharge are not available for review.  However, his record contains a DD Form 214 showing he was discharged on 26 February 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability), paragraph 6, and his service was characterized as under conditions other than honorable.  He was assigned Separation Program Number (SPN) 28B (frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities).  He completed 6 months and 11 days of total active service.  

6.  On 18 December 1975, The Adjutant General informed him that the Army Discharge Review Board had determined he was properly discharged.

7.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  Paragraph 6a provided that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness when one or more of the following conditions existed:  (1) frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; (2) sexual perversion including but not limited to lewd and lascivious acts, indecent exposure, indecent acts with or assault on a child; (3) drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana; (4) an established pattern of shirking; (5) an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts; and (6) an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to contribute adequate support to dependents (including failure to comply with orders, decrees or judgments).  When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 

	a.  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.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence does not support the applicant's request to change his characterization of service to honorable.

2.  The applicant was age 19 when he was inducted and he had completed 8 years of civilian education.  There is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age with the same level of education who successfully completed military service or that his level of education prevented him from successfully completing military service.  There is also no evidence that his family circumstances affected his ability to serve.  

3.  The complete facts and circumstances of his discharge are not available; however, his record shows lengthy periods during which he was AWOL and nearly 3 months in confinement.  He was assigned an SPN indicating the basis for his discharge was frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, and the available evidence supports the decision to discharge him for this reason.  In the absence of evidence showing otherwise, it is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  Based on his lengthy periods of being AWOL, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, there is no basis upon which to change the characterization of his service to honorable or general, under honorable conditions.  

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)                                         AR20130015492



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130015492



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1