IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 June 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130018316 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 (GD) to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states he would like to have his record clean. He turned 18 overseas. At the time of his discharge, he didn't realize the importance of an HD. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 August 1974, at the age of 17 years and 4 months. He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 15B (Sergeant Missile Crewman). His initial duty assignment was in Germany effective 30 January 1975. 3. On 2 October 1975, the applicant's command initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)). The reasons stated were the applicant's incompetent and substandard performance of duty and his disrespect for authority. If the applicant declined to voluntarily accept the EDP separation he could be considered for a discharge under the misconduct provisions of the separation regulations. The unit commander recommended discharge with a GD 4. After consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged the proposed separation and voluntarily consented to the separation under the EDP. He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights and waived his right to provide a statement in his own behalf. He acknowledged that if his service was characterized as general under honorable conditions he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life. 5. The discharge authority approved the separation directing the applicant be discharged with a GD. 6. On 6 November 1975, the applicant was discharged under the EDP. He had completed 1 year and 28 days of creditable service with 26 days of lost time (due to being absent without leave (AWOL)). 7. There is no indication the applicant applied for review of his discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. 8. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policy and sets forth the procedure for administrative separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 5-37 of the regulation in effect at the time provided for the discharge of enlisted personnel who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of active duty and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions: poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential. No individual would be discharged under this program unless the individual voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge. Individuals discharged under this regulation were issued either a general or an honorable discharge. b. Paragraph 3-7a states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty. c. Paragraph 3-7b states that a GD is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's record does not contain any details of the actions that led to the applicant's discharge. 2. However, the applicant's reported incompetent and substandard performance of duty, his disrespect for authority, combined with his period of AWOL, clearly show his service did not meet standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty warranting an honorable discharge. 3. There is no documentation to support the applicant's contention and no rationale to support the implied conclusion that those alleged circumstances warrant the 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) AR20130018316 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130018316 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1