IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  6 November 2014	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140005127 


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 upgrade of his general under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  He states that he needs this upgrade in order to be eligible for automobile insurance with the United Services Automobile Association.

3.  He provides a statement from his automobile insurance company, a letter from the Social Security Administration, and 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.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 July 1977.
3.  His disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on three occasions for the following offenses:

* being absent from his unit on 21 February 1978
* being absent without leave (AWOL) from 26 May to 13 June 1978
* failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 13 November 1978

4.  His service record contains a memorandum, dated 22 December 1978, which indicates he received formal counseling on various dates between 21 February 1978 and 13 December 1978 for:

* failure to repair (FTR) at General Education Development (GED) class
* being late for GED class
* failing to obey a noncommissioned officer (NCO), being disrespectful to an NCO, communicating a threat
* sleeping on duty and being disrespectful to an NCO
* requesting a pass under false pretences, failing to return from pass due to traffic violations, and FTR
* failing to obey an NCO and sleeping on guard duty
* having a dirty uniform on guard duty for the 2nd consecutive day
* being absent from guard duty
* failing to report for guard duty on time
* being disrespectful to an NCO and communicating a threat to an NCO

5.  The applicant's unit commander notified him of his proposed discharge action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 for misconduct.  The unit commander stated the applicant was a rehabilitative transfer from another company in the battalion.  Since he arrived, he had received Article 15s for FTR, sleeping on guard duty, and disobeying a NCO and being AWOL.  The unit commander also stated the applicant had a negative attitude and showed no signs of wanting to improve.  He was advised of his rights.  He consulted legal counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board officers, waived a personal appearance before a board of officers, and submitted statements in his own behalf.

6.  The unit commander recommended the applicant be discharged by reason of an Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) with issuance of a general discharge.

7.  The separation authority approved the separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 by reason of EDP with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.
8.  On 2 February 1979, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 by reason of EDP.  He completed 1 year, 6 months, and 9 days of active military service with 17 days of time lost.

9.  His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the Army.  Paragraph 5-31 of this regulation, in effect at the time, governed the EDP.  This program provided that members who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army because of existence of one or more of the following conditions may be separated when they failed to respond to counseling:

* Poor attitude
* Lack of motivation
* Lack of self-discipline
* Inability to adapt socially or emotionally
* Failure to demonstrate promotion potential

Under this regulation, a general or an honorable discharge was authorized, as appropriate.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

2.  His service record shows he received three Article 15s for being absent from his unit, being AWOL for 17 days, and for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and he received adverse formal counselings.


3.  It appears the applicant's chain of command determined his overall military service did not meet the standards for an honorable discharge as defined in Army Regulation 635-200 and appropriately characterized his service as general under honorable conditions.

4.  He has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the type of discharge he received was in error or unjust.  Therefore, there is no basis for changing his discharge to fully honorable.

5.  The ABCMR does not amend/or correct military records solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible to receive automobile insurance.

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)                                         AR20140005127



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140005127



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1