BOARD DATE: 27 October 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110006495 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 upgrade of his general discharge. 2. The applicant states the charges were untrue. He drove the commanding officer's jeep. He was never disrespectful or belligerent and he received the Good Conduct Medal. He was promoted by General Westmoreland. 3. The applicant provides no supporting documents. 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 volunteered for induction and entered active duty on 18 August 1970. He completed basic training but was absent without leave (AWOL) at Christmas time. He eventually completed advanced individual training as an artilleryman and was stationed in Europe. 3. He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on 10 January 1971 for AWOL (19 days); on 20 June 1971 for absence from his appointed place of duty; on 15 September 1971 for disobedience of a lawful order and breaking restriction; and on 4 November 1971 for absence from his appointed place of duty. 4. On 29 January 1972, the commanding officer recommended that the applicant be separated under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) with a general discharge. He noted that the applicant had not been promoted due to inability to adjust either at work or socially. The applicant was frequently disrespectful and belligerent towards noncommissioned officers and other supervisory personnel. He noted the applicant had twice received NJP in the last 4 months. He had been counseled and an acknowledgement from the applicant was attached. 5. The intermediate commanders recommended approval of the recommendation and the separation authority directed separation with a general discharge and separation program number (SPN) 21U. 6. On 7 April 1972, the applicant was separated with a general discharge in pay grade E-2. His DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) showed he had 1 year, 7 months, and 2 days of total active service. His awards were listed as the National Defense Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal, and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle (M-16) Bar. 7. Army Regulation 601-280, chapter 10, then set forth policy and prescribed procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP.  This program was based on the premise that reenlistment is a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement meet Army standards.  It is designed to (1) enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, (2) selectively retain the best qualified Soldiers to 30 years of active duty, (3) deny reenlistment to non-progressive and nonproductive Soldiers, and (4) encourage Soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.  The program [which now operates under Army Regulation 635-200] applied to pay grades E-5 through E-9. Department of the Army Message 242110Z September 1971 extended it to the lower pay grades and prescribed that SPN 21U would be applied. 8. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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 applicant was discharged because his conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement did not meet Army standards. That this was the case is clearly demonstrated by the fact that he had received four NJP's and, after about a year-and-a-half of service, was still serving in pay grade E-2. 2. In view of the foregoing there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. 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) AR20110006495 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110006495 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1