BOARD DATE:	  8 July 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130019558 


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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) to show his character of service was honorable.

2.  He states he was told that in 6 months his character of service would change to honorable.

3.  He provides a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

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 2 April 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed initial entry training, and he was awarded military occupational specialty 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist).  He was advanced to private 2/E-2 effective 20 July 1974, which was the highest grade he held.

3.  He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on:

* 16 July 1974 for stealing a tape recorder belonging to another Soldier
* 6 September 1975 for absenting himself from his unit without authority from 23 to 26 August 1975

4.  On 22 January 1976, his company commander notified him he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)).  The company commander stated he was recommending the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate and that the reasons for the proposed discharge were the applicant's poor attitude, lack of motivation, and failure to demonstrate promotion potential.  

5.  On 27 January 1976, the applicant acknowledged notification of the proposed discharge.  He voluntarily consented to discharge and indicated he did not desire to submit a statement in his behalf.  He acknowledged that he:

* could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he was issued a general discharge under honorable conditions
* had been provided the opportunity to consult with a Judge Advocate General's Corps officer
* could withdraw his voluntary consent prior to the date the discharge authority approved the discharge

6.  On 5 March 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  On 12 March 1976, he was discharged as directed.  He completed 1 year, 11 months, and 8 days of total active service with 3 days of lost time.  

7.  The record does not show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change in his character of service within its 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  He provides a VA letter, dated 20 August 2009, showing his "character of discharge" was honorable as certified to the VA by the branch of service or as shown on official military documents.  

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Paragraph 5-37, in effect at the time, provided for the EDP.  This program provided for the discharge of individuals who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of active duty and who demonstrated by poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards.  No member could be separated under the EDP without his or her voluntary consent.  Such personnel were issued a general or honorable discharge, as appropriate, except that a recommendation for a general discharge had to be initiated by the immediate commander and the individual had to consult with legal counsel.  

	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 evidence of record does not support the applicant's request correction of his DD Form 214 to show his character of service was honorable.

2.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade character of service.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits an application requesting a change in a discharge.

3.  His discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  He voluntarily consented to separation under the EDP and he was fully aware his commander had recommended that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  

4.  The available documentation shows no evidence of an error in the processing of his discharge, and his record of indiscipline supports the characterization of service he received.  The fact that the VA has recorded his character of service as honorable is not evidence of an error in the character of service recorded on his DD Form 214.  

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient basis upon which to grant the requested relief.
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)                                         AR20130019558





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130019558



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1