IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 February 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100020020 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 general discharge under honorable conditions to fully honorable. 2. The applicant states he was not given legal counsel or advised by legal counsel before, during, or after court proceedings. 3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge 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's available records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 July 1980. He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76C (Equipment Records and Parts Specialist). He was assigned to Company C, 522nd Military Intelligence Battalion, 2nd Armored Division, Fort Hood, TX. 3. On 10 November 1981, he was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-31h(2). His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 4 months, and 4 days of net active service with 4 days of lost time. Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. 4. There is no documentation in the available records and he has not provided any documentation that further explains the circumstances surrounding or the processes involved with his discharge. 5. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5 provided that members who completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated 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 an honorable discharge certificate was predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member's current enlistment with due consideration for the member's age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 6. 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: The applicant's request for upgrade of his general discharge has been carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request. The evidence of record does not define the circumstances surrounding his discharge or the character of his service. Absent additional information, administrative regularity must be presumed; therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his general 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 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) AR20090018593 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100020020 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1