IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  23 October 2014	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140005032 


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 joined the Army at age 17
* at age 19, after serving 18 months and reaching the rank of specialist five, he was assigned 19 Soldiers
* his company commander was threatened by his age and rising career
* his commander discriminated against him because of his religion and age
* his commander would put him on guard duty on Sunday and would not allow him to go to prayer meetings on Wednesdays
* his commander made comments about his performance as a leader and was determined to make him reenlist for 6 more years
* he was under pressure at the end of his period of service, from his command and due to his family and the birth of his child
* he was told he would have a career and benefits if he remained in the Army, but he was under so much family pressure he signed all his papers without realizing his discharge was not an honorable discharge
* his discharge should be upgraded, based on evidence that shows he was an impeccable young career Soldier with commendations and great proficiency

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence 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 3 June 1970 at 17 years of age.

3.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), as follows:

* on 21 December 1971, for dereliction of duty
* on 13 April 1972, for failure to obey an order and failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time
* on 23 May 1973, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time

4.  A DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 11 May 1973, shows his commander submitted a request for issuance of a general, under honorable conditions discharge upon his separation.  His provided the following comments, in part:

* his conduct had been general rather than honorable
* his job performance had been most unsatisfactory
* he consistently demonstrated a very poor attitude and initiative in any task assigned to him
* his area of responsibility had to be taken over by someone more responsible
* his chain of command agreed that his general conduct had been very poor and he was a bad influence on other members of the unit
* he was currently under civil charges of disorderly conduct, concealed weapon, and possession of marijuana
* his conduct and efficiency rating was unsatisfactory

5.  On 11 May 1973, the separation authority approved the recommendation for issuance of a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

6.  A DA Form 2496, dated 21 May 1973, shows he failed to report for his military occupational specialty testing; his commander recommended NJP.

7.  On 1 June 1973, he was released from active duty.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he completed 2 years, 11 months, and 29 days of creditable active service.  He was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), by reason of expiration term of service (ETS), and he was assigned Separation Program Number (SPN) 201.

8.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

9.  His records are void of and he fails to provide evidence that shows he was discriminated against.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  The version of the regulation in effect at the time stated Soldiers would be separated from active duty upon termination of enlistment, period of induction, and other periods of active duty or active duty for training.  When a member's service is characterized as general, the specific basis for such separation will be included in the individual's military personnel record.  Service may be characterized as general by the commanding officer authorized to take such action or higher authority when the member is eligible for or is subject to separation and it has been determined, under prescribed standards, that separation is warranted. 

	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 for an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge was carefully considered.

2.  Although he was 17 years of age when he enlisted, there is no evidence he was any less mature than other Soldiers who successfully completed their service or that his indiscipline was caused by his age.  There is nothing in his records that shows he was forced to choose the discharge; he separated upon his ETS.

3.  Based on his record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his service to 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 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)                                         AR20140005032



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140005032



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1