BOARD DATE:	  19 February 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140011894 


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 discharge from a general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.  

2.  The applicant states he was told he was non-adaptive to military life.  He was asked to accept the type of discharge and apply for an upgrade at a later time.  

3.  The applicant provides a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

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 December 1969.  

3.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article     15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following occasions:

* on 10 February 1970, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 7 February 1970
* on 23 April 1971, for being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 15–21 April 1971

4.  On 3 June 1971, his immediate commander recommended his discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 625-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability) by reason of unsuitability. The stated reasons for the proposed separation action were the applicant's:

* lack of interest toward his job
* repeated offenses
* negative attitude toward his superiors and the U.S. Army
* defiance of authority
* unsatisfactory level of performance 
* lackadaisical attitude towards his job, his superiors, and the U.S. Army

5.  The commander also indicated the applicant had been counseled by members of his chain of command on five occasions.  

6.  The applicant consulted with counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and his right to present his case before a board of officers, to submit a statement in his own behalf, and to be represented by counsel.  He elected to waive his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He also indicated that he understood he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of a general discharge under honorable conditions.  He also acknowledged that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws and that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life as a result of a discharge under conditions other than honorable.

7.  On 10 June 1971, the separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 17 June 1971, he was discharged accordingly.

8.  There is no evidence indicating he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

9.  Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  Paragraph 6b provided that an individual was subject to separation for unsuitability when one or more of the following conditions existed:  (1) inaptitude; (2) character and behavior disorders; (3) apathy (lack of appropriate interest, defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively); (4) alcoholism; (5) enuresis; and (6) homosexuality (evidenced homosexual tendencies, desires, or interest, but was without overt homosexual acts).  When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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.  The evidence of record confirms his separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation at the time.  He consulted with counsel; he was advised of the basis for the separation action; he was provided the opportunity to present his case before a board of officers; and he had the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, which he elected not to do.  Therefore, all requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  His record of indiscipline includes NJP on 2 occasions, 6 days of lost time due to AWOL, and several counseling sessions.  Based on this record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, it appears the character of service he received was proper considering his overall record of service.

4.  The applicant has failed to show that his discharge processing and/or the character of service he received were in error or unjust.  As a result, there is no basis for granting 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)                                         AR20140011894



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140011894



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1