BOARD DATE:	 19 March 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140013045 


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 his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he is requesting his discharge be upgraded to honorable so he can obtain insurance with United Services Automobile Association (USAA), have "veteran" put on his driver's license, and for other reasons.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty).

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 29 October 1974 and he held military occupational specialty 31M (Multichannel Communication Equipment Operator).  On 18 April 1975, he was assigned to Company A, 501st Signal Battalion, Fort Campbell, KY.

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

* 21 July 1975, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from his assigned unit on 13 July 1975
* 6 December 1975, for wrongfully laying down while posted as a sentinel
* 26 October 1976, for leaving his appointed place of duty without authority

4.  On 18 January 1977, he was notified by his immediate commander that discharge action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 5, paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program).  His commander stated the reasons for the proposed actions were his lack of self-discipline, lack of motivation, poor attitude, and his inability to adapt socially or emotionally to the Army.  He was recommending he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

5.  On 18 January 1977, he acknowledged notification of his proposed discharge from the Army.  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 under honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  He further acknowledged that he understood if he were issued a general discharge, he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  He voluntarily consented to the separation and elected not to seek legal counsel or submit a statement in his own behalf.

6.  On 28 January 1977, the separation authority approved his discharge for failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 9 February 1977, he was discharged accordingly.  

7.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37 by reason of failure to meet acceptable standards for retention (separation program designator (SPD) JGH), with an under honorable conditions characterization of service.  He completed 2 years, 3 months, and 10 days of net active service with 1 day of lost time due to being AWOL. 

8.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, in effect at the time, provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that 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 may be discharged under the Expeditious Discharge Program.  It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary.  No member would be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge.  Issuance of a general discharge certificate was normally considered appropriate.

10.  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 evidence of record shows the applicant demonstrated that he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel as evidenced by the NJP he received on three occasions for being AWOL, laying down on his post, and leaving his place of duty without authority.  Accordingly, his commander initiated separation action against him.  

2.  His separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights and he voluntarily consented to his discharge.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation therefore were appropriate.  

3.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans or other benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge.

4.  Based on his overall record, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled 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)                                         AR20140013045





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140013045



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1