BOARD DATE: 12 December 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130007243 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 fully honorable. 2. The applicant states his company commander guaranteed him that he would receive an honorable discharge upon leaving Germany. He wanted to appeal the discharge but did not find the time. 3. The applicant provides a self-authored letter explaining the circumstances surrounding his discharge and 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. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 December 1970 for a period of 3 years. He completed basic training at Fort Lewis, Washington, and advanced individual training as a radio relay and carrier attendant at Fort Gordon, Georgia, before being transferred to Germany on 23 August 1971. 3. On 2 November 1972, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for missing movement with his unit. 4. On 22 February 1973, NJP was imposed against him for operating a privately-owned motor vehicle without a U.S. Army Europe motor vehicle operator's license. 5. On 25 July 1973, NJP was imposed against him for failing to obey a lawful general order by signing a legal rental contract without proper authority and for disobeying a lawful order to report for a urinalysis. 6. On 27 July 1973, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to bar him from reenlistment. As the basis for his action, he cited the applicant's record of NJP; unsatisfactory conduct and efficiency; five positive urinalysis tests; below standard military appearance, bearing and courtesy; and overt hostility to the military environment. 7. The applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and the battalion approved the bar to reenlistment. 8. The applicant departed Germany on 3 November 1973 and was transferred to a drug rehabilitation program at Brooke Army Medical Center in El Paso, Texas. 9. On 23 November 1973, he was discharged under honorable conditions as a member of a medical holding detachment who was not going to reenlist (separation program designator code 412). He completed 2 years, 11 months, and 8 days of active service. 10. A review of his official records failed to reveal any individual decorations or completion of any training that resulted in the award of a proficiency badge, such as airborne, air assault, or ranger training. 11. There is no evidence in the available records to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 12. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) serves as the authority for separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation in effect at the time provided that the characterization of service would be determined solely by the member's military record and behavior. It also provided that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded to fully honorable has been noted and appears to lack merit. 2. NJP was imposed against the applicant no less than three times, he had positive urinalysis for drugs no less than five times, and he was barred from reenlistment. Accordingly, his service did not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge and he failed to provide sufficient evidence or argument to show otherwise. 3. In the absence of evidence to show his service warranted a fully honorable discharge, there appears to be no basis to grant his request for an upgrade. 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) AR20130007243 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130007243 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1