IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  15 July 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130018383 


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 reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge.  

2.  The applicant states he is submitting two letters from his manager and assistant manager.  He has taken many efforts to improve himself that he feels is clearly reflected in his work performance.  

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and two character reference letters.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20120020802, on 18 June 2013.

2.  The applicant provides a copy of two character reference letters.  This is new evidence and will be considered by the Board.

3.  His military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, on 18 September 1979, for 3 years.  He served as a motor transport operator.  He was advanced to pay grade E-3 on 1 July 1980.


4.  He received counseling between October 1980 and January 1981 for:

* failing to be in proper uniform and not meeting military standards
* suspension of his visitation privileges as a result of his bad conduct
* his appearance and overall negative attitude towards his duties and a Solider in the Army

5.  On 4 February 1981, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for signing an official record with intent to deceive, failing to obey lawful written orders, and operating his Army motor vehicle with an unauthorized passenger and permitting that passenger to operate his assigned Army vehicle.

6.  On 5 March 1981, the applicant‘s company commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP), with a general discharge.  The company commander stated the reasons were the applicant’s poor attitude, lack of motivation, failure to demonstrate promotion potential, and inability to adapt socially or emotionally to the Army.  The applicant was advised of his rights.

7.  On 12 March 1981, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation action.  He waived his rights, consented to the proposed discharge action, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

8.  On 12 March 1981, the applicant's company commander recommended approval of the applicant's discharge.  The company commander stated that the applicant had demonstrated a complete lack of self-discipline, a disregard for responsibility for his own actions, and an inability to cope with military requirements.  He felt if the applicant was allowed to remain in the service the applicant would never significantly contribute to the betterment of the Army.

9.  On 19 March 1981, the separation authority directed the applicant's discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

10.  Accordingly, he was discharged in pay grade E-3, on 31 March 1981, with a general discharge.  He was credited with completing 1 year, 6 months, and 13 days of net active service with no time lost.

11.  He provides two character reference letters, dated 6 and 16 August 2013, wherein the individuals attest to the applicant being a reliable employee since October 2012, he had no problem completing any task set before him, and he was very dependable.
12.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation stated in:

   a.  Paragraph 5-31 - provided for the discharge of enlisted personnel whose performance of duty and potential for continued effective service fell below the standards required in the Army.  Individuals discharged under the regulation could be issued a general or honorable discharge.

   b.  Paragraph 3-7a - an honorable discharge was a separation with honor.  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 inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant received counseling and punishment between October 1980 and January 1981.  His company commander initiated action to separate him because of a poor attitude, lack of motivation and self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, and failure to demonstrate promotion potential.  The separation authority approved his discharge action and directed the issuance a general discharge.  He was discharged accordingly on 31 March 1981.

2.  His contentions and the documentation he submitted with his application have been noted; however, he has provided no evidence or a convincing argument to show his discharge should be upgraded and his military record contains no evidence which would entitle him to an upgrade of his general discharge.  The evidence shows his misconduct and unsatisfactory performance diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.

3.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would have jeopardized his rights.  He voluntarily accepted discharge under the provisions of the EDP in lieu of disciplinary or administrative separation under other provisions of law or regulations.  

4.  His service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.


5.  He is commended for his post-service accomplishments; however, such service in itself is insufficient as a basis for granting him an honorable discharge.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20120020808, dated 18 June 2013.




      _______ _   __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)                                         AR20130018383



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130018383



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1