IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  26 March 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140012526 


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 the spelling of his last name and an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) to honorable. 

2.  The applicant states his last name ends with "ing" not "in" as shown on his DD Form 214.  He also contends that his character of discharge is in error and should be changed to honorable.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 and his driver's license.   

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 15 June 1973 under the last name "Hxxxing" as shown on his DD Form 4 (Enlistment Contract – Armed Forces of the United States), completed training, and was awarded the military occupational specialty 63B (Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic).

3.  The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on six occasions as follows:

* 3 December 1973, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from  11 November 1973 through 1 December 1973 (19 days)
* 28 January 1974, for failure to go to his place of duty
* 4 February 1974, for failure to go to his place of duty on two occasions
* 24 June 1974, for being absent from his place of duty
* 3 January 1975, for failure to go to his place of duty
* 17 March 1975, for being absent from his place of duty 

4.  On 17 March 1975, the applicant's unit initiated discharge action under the Expeditious Discharge Program and recommended he receive a GD for unsuitability by reason of a poor attitude, lack of self-discipline, lack of motivation, and failure to demonstrate promotion potential as evidenced by acceptance of NJP multiple times.

5.  The applicant acknowledged the proposed separation and voluntarily consented to the separation.  He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights, that if his service was characterized as general under honorable conditions he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life, that there would be no automatic review or upgrading of his discharge, and that he could not apply for reenlistment for two years.  He elected not to provide a statement on his own behalf.

6.  The separation authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant receive a GD.

7.  The applicant was discharged on 25 April 1975 with a GD.  He had 1 year, 10 months, and 11 days of creditable active service with 19 days of lost time.  The DD Form 214 shows his last name as "Hxxxxn."

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), sets forth the purpose and policies for enlisted personnel separations.  

   a.  Chapter 3, as in effect at that time, outlines the criteria for characterization of service as follows:

		(1)  Paragraph 3-7a states that an HD is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.  

		(2)  Paragraph 3-7b states that a GD is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge.  

   b.  Chapter 5 provided for the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  This program provided that an individual 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 he could not or would not meet acceptable standards could be separated.  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.  
   
9.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It states the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty.  The DD Form 214 is of vital importance to the separating Soldier and must be properly prepared according to prescribed guidance; ensure all information on the DD Form 214 and other separation documents is accurate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It appears that when the applicant's DD Form 214 was prepared the last letter of his last name was omitted.  As such, it would be appropriate to correct this typographical error to show his last name as "Hxxxxxg."

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the reasons for his discharge and is appropriate for the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  The applicant was discharged for a failure to meet acceptable standards as documented by his six NJP's.  His repeated absences from duty clearly demonstrate that he failed to meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty warranting a GD.

4.  The applicant has not provided and the record does not contain any evidence of an error or injustice in the characterization of the applicant's service.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____X___  ____X___  ____X___ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing on his DD Form 214 his last name as shown on his DD Form 4. 

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading his discharge.



      _______ _   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)                                         AR20140012526



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140012526



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1