IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:12 August 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140000153 


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 discharge.

2.  The applicant states the discharge was supposed to be upgraded after six months, but that has not happened.  He would like to use the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital.

3.  The applicant did not provide any supporting documentation.

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 10 June 1981.  He held military occupational specialty 19D (Cavalry Scout).

3.  On 29 June 1982, his immediate commander advised him that he intended to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 
5-31.   The reasons for the action were the applicant's apathy, poor standards, and low performance.

4.  On 29 June 1982, the applicant acknowledged notification of the proposed separation action and consulted with legal counsel.  He was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effect on future enlistment in the Army, the possible effects of a general discharge, and the procedures and rights available to him.  He acknowledged he understood if he were issued a general discharge he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. He further indicated he understood that there was no automatic upgrading or review by any government agency of a characterization of service which is under honorable conditions, and that he must apply to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR if he wished a review of the characterization of service.  The applicant had been counseled three times for his deficiencies and he had accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on two occasions.  He indicated he would not make a statement in his own behalf.

5.  On 29 June 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 20 July 1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 shows he had completed 1 year, 1 month, and 11 days of creditable active duty service.

6.  There is no indication he applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge.

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

	a.  Chapter 5, in effect at the time, 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 they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential could be discharged under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary.  Issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate was predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member's current enlistment with due consideration for the member's age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude.
	b.  Paragraph 3-7a, currently in effect, 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 U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  

2.  His separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

4.  The ABCMR does not upgrade discharges based solely on the passage of time nor does it correct records solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for benefits from another agency.  Granting of veterans' benefits is not within the 
purview of the ABCMR and any questions regarding eligibility for healthcare and other benefits should be addressed to the VA.

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 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)                                         AR20130013902



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140000153



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1