IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  23 June 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140019744 


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 his military records by showing he was advanced to private first class (PFC), pay grade E-3, and subsequently discharged with an honorable characterization of service.

2.  The applicant states he should have been advanced to PFC when he completed his advanced individual training.  He further contends that he was entitled to be discharged for being a "failure to adapt to the military style of life."

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his 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.  On 26 October 1971, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He commenced the Basic Combat Training Course on 8 November 1971.  He was advanced to private, pay grade E-2 on 15 January 1972.

3.  On 7 February 1972, the applicant was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for advanced training as a Pershing Missile Crewman.  He completed this training and was awarded the corresponding military occupational specialty (MOS).

4.  On or about 31 March 1972, the applicant departed Fort Sill for duty in Europe.  On 14 April 1972, he was assigned to Battery D, 1st Battalion, 81st Field Artillery.

5.  Records show that the applicant was counseled by his platoon sergeant and platoon leader and the unit first sergeant.  His battery commander counseled him on 15 May, 15 June, 17 July, 15 August, 15 September, and 16 October 1972.  These counseling sessions were to inform him of the conditions that were jeopardizing his advancement potential.  The commander tried to make the applicant see and understand the importance of changing his performance of duty.  He was afforded every opportunity to improve.  However, he failed in all respects to adjust to the requirements for performance placed upon him by his service in the U.S. Army.

6.  On 27 October 1972, the applicant acknowledged the counseling he had received.  He further indicated that he understood that he had a prior understanding of the impact of failure to demonstrate the standards of performance and ability required by the U.S. Army.

7.  On 27 October 1972, the applicant's commander recommended immediate separation from military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), chapter 4, due to his poor performance of duty and lack of potential for continued effectiveness.  The commander recommended he receive a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate).

8.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed discharge with a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 
29 December 1972.  He completed 1 year, 2 months, and 4 days of active duty service.  His DD Form 214 shows a separation program number (SPN) U21 indicating he was separated due to failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion.

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

11.  Army Regulation 600-200:

	a.  Chapter 4 (Qualitative Management), in effect at the time, provided policy and procedures for denying retention/reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) to enlisted personnel who were non-progressive and/or unsatisfactory performers.

	b.  Chapter 7 (Promotions) stated that Soldiers would be recommended for advancement/promotion only after they have developed skills and abilities to perform duties and assume responsibilities at the higher grade.  It was generally understood that a Soldier who did not do an outstanding job in his present grade, would not work well in the next higher grade.  The objective of the promotion system was to provide for career progression and rank which was in line with the Soldier's potential.  Advancement to PFC was not mandatory.  Commanders normally advanced Soldiers without constraints for those who had 12 months time in service and 4 months time in grade as a private, pay grade E-2.  Two months time in grade could be waivered.  Accelerated advancements to PFC were authorized to recognize outstanding performance.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200:

	a.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected by showing he was advanced to PFC, pay grade E-3, and subsequently discharged with an honorable characterization of service.

2.  The available evidence of record shows that the applicant's chain of command had counseled him for a period of several months in an attempt to help him improve his poor duty performance.  Even though he acknowledged this counseling he apparently did not make the necessary improvements.  Therefore, he did not show the commander that he had the potential to perform his duties at a higher grade.  The result was his being denied advancement to PFC and an administrative discharge due to poor performance of duty and lack of potential for continued effectiveness.

3.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

5.  Based on his poor performance of duty, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the acceptable standards for Army personnel.  At this time there is insufficient evidence to upgrade of his discharge.  And there is no evidence of error or injustice in what the Army did in this case.

6.  Based on the above, the applicant's request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20140019744



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019744



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1