BOARD DATE: 8 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130019488 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 honorable. 2. The applicant states he was given a 21-day expeditious discharge because of his family hardship. He wanted to take his wife and two children to Germany with him, but the Army would not pay those moving expenses. He could not pay for it and he could not leave his family anywhere, so he requested a hardship discharge. He was led to believe that his general discharge would automatically be upgraded after 6 months. 3. The applicant provides a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 22 November 2014. 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. On 10 February 1976, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed training as a medical specialist and was transferred to Fort Lewis, Washington, on 8 July 1976. 3. On 19 November 1976, his commander notified him by memorandum that he was initiating separation action against him under the Expeditious Discharge Program based on his relief from the duty section, five letters of indebtedness, numerous telephone calls concerning his rent, and associated counselings about these incidents with no effect. 4. On 19 November 1976, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and voluntarily consented to the discharge. He waived his right to make a statement and indicated he understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a general discharge under honorable conditions. He also acknowledged he understood he had a right to consult with a military lawyer and that he could withdraw his consent at any time prior to the discharge authority's action. 5. The discharge authority approved the separation action and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 6. On 24 November 1976, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program. 7. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board during his 15-year period of eligibility. 8. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37 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 an honorable or a general discharge. 9. Army Regulation 635-200, 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 was clearly discharged because of his conduct. 2. There is no available evidence indicating he had family problems and or that he was informed that his general discharge would automatically be upgraded. 3. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of his discharge is commensurate with his overall record of military service. 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) AR20130019488 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130019488 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1