BOARD DATE:	  20 October 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150003107 


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:

   a.  The maintenance unit to which he was assigned was doing war exercise.  

   b.  An officer walked by him and he forgot that the exercise was over.  

   c.  He failed to salute the officer and the officer got offended.

	d.  He has not been in any trouble since he got out of the military and he has lived as a law abiding citizen.

	e.  He had some trouble adjusting to military life and he does not believe it should affect the rest of his life or his military record.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214.

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 26 July 1977.  He completed training as a recovery specialist.

3.  The applicant was counseled on five separate occasions between 20 June 1978 and 8 December 1978 for the following:

* Failure to obey orders (two specifications)
* Disobeying a lawful order
* Failure to repair
* Leaving his worksite

4.  On 24 September 1978, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey a lawful order.

5.  He accepted NJP on 27 April 1979 for being disrespectful in language towards his superior noncommissioned officer (NCO).

6.  On 12 June 1979, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge for inability to adapt socially and emotionally.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with counsel, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 22 June 1979 and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 28 June 1979, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31, under the expeditious discharge program (EDP).

8.  There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-31, then in effect, provided the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals under the EDP.  The EDP provided for the separation of Soldiers who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel.  An honorable discharge or a general discharge could be issued under this program. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows the applicant accepted NJP for failure to obey a lawful order and for being disrespectful in language towards his superior NCO.  He was also counseled on five separate occasions for his acts of misconduct.

2.  The EDP provided for the separation of Soldiers who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel. An honorable discharge or a general discharge could be issued under this program.  

3.  The applicant has not shown error or injustice in the character of service he received as his service was not fully honorable.  He is commended for his post-service conduct.  However, it is an insufficient justification for granting 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)                                         AR20150003107





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150003107



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1