RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 March 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060012717 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his 27 April 1987 Separation Document (DD Form 214) be changed to reflect a more favorable discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that his first sergeant (1SG) was not a moral man. He states that his 1SG promised him that if he reenlisted he would receive an overseas assignment to Germany. However, after he reenlisted, he never received this assignment. He claims that he became discouraged and disgusted by his 1SG's empty promises of an overseas assignment and as a result, he requested to be discharged. 3. The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application: DD Form 214; Veterans Administration Letter, dated 31 August 1984; and Report of Confidential Social Security Benefit Information. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice that occurred on 27 April 1982. The application submitted in this case is dated 21 August 2006. 2. 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 allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. 3. The applicant’s Military Personnel Record Jacket (MPRJ) is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his separation processing. The record does contain a DD Form 214 that shows on 18 October 1977, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 13-4c (2), Army Regulation 625-200, by reason of Unsuitability (apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively). It also confirms he received a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). 4. The applicant's DD Form 214 also shows that he earned the Army Service Ribbon, Army Good Conduct Medal, and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle and Hand Grenade Bars during his active duty tenure. It further shows he completed a total of 4 years, 1 month, and 25 days of creditable active military service and that he accrued 4 months and 15 days of time lost. 5. There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 6. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13, in effect at the time, provided the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability based on inaptitude, personality disorder, apathy, or homosexual tendencies. Members separated under these provisions could receive either an HD or GD. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s request for a change to the Narrative Reason shown in Item 28 of his DD Form 214 was carefully considered. However, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the requested relief. 2. The applicant’s record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing. However, it does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the reason and characterization of his discharge. Therefore, Government regularity in the discharge process is presumed. Absent information and evidence to the contrary, it is concluded that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 3. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement. 4. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 27 April 1987, the date of his discharge. Therefore, the time for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 26 April 1990. He failed to file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x_ _x _ _x__ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that 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. 2. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law. Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ___x____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060012717 SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED 2007/03/08 TYPE OF DISCHARGE GD DATE OF DISCHARGE 1977/10/18 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR635-200 . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY Mr. Swartz ISSUES 1. 110 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.