IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 October 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130003575 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 to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states the determination of his discharge was unjust in his opinion. 3. The applicant provides a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States). 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 10 March 1981. He completed training as a tank crewmember. 3. The applicant's records show he was counseled on at least 22 separate occasions between 1 November 1981 and 2 October 1982 for the following offenses: * having an overdrawn savings account * failing to repair * backing into a tank causing $200.00 in damages * missing guard mount * falling out for formation in the wrong uniform * failing to follow instructions * failing to clean his room * wearing a ripped uniform * not controlling his temper 4. He accepted nonjudicial punishment on at two occasions for: * being disrespectful in language toward his superior noncommissioned officer * dereliction of duty * failing to go to his appointed place of duty 5. The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not available. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions (general) due to unsatisfactory performance on 12 November 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13. 6. There is no evidence showing the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 7. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for the administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 13 provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when, in the commander's judgment: * the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier * retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale * the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future * the basis for separation will continue or recur * the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely b. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions. c. Paragraph 3-7a states 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's contentions have been noted and his supporting evidence has been considered. 2. The applicant has not proven error or injustice in the type of discharge he received. 3. The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available. However, the available evidence shows he was counseled on numerous occasions and he accepted nonjudicial punishment on two separate occasions regarding his offenses and acts of indiscipline. 4. It appears that the character of service he received appropriately reflects his service at the time of his discharge. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that what the Army did in his case was correct. 5. In view of the foregoing, his 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 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) AR20130003575 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130003575 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1