IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004242 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 he is eligible for an upgrade and he has met the conditions. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge 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 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 the cases 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. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Illinois Army National Guard (ILARNG) on 15 June 1981 and he was honorably discharged on 16 November 1982. 3. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 February 1983. He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 19K (M1 Abrams Armor Crewman). 4. He accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on/for: * 23 June 1983 – stealing from the Fort Knox Main Exchange; his punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $128.00 pay for 7 days, and 14 days of restriction and extra duty; he did not appeal * 1 July 1983 – failing to go to extra duty on 24, 25, and 26 June 1983; his punishment included 14 days of extra duty and restriction 5. On 22 July 1983, the applicant's company commander notified the applicant of the proposed elimination from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for the applicant's continued unsatisfactory performance as exemplified by two Article 15's in a 2-week period and by numerous instances of performance counseling given by his supervisor. He advised the applicant of his rights. 6. After consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation. He also acknowledged he could receive a general discharge and the results of the receipt of such a discharge. He waived his rights and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. 7. In his statement, the applicant requested to be allowed to remain in the service and go to his unit at Fort Hood, TX. He had recently completed basic combat and advanced individual training in MOS 19K. He felt that he should be given the opportunity to prove himself as a productive member of the Army. He was held over after completing the M1 Tank Crewman Course to take part in the Gunnery Circular Error Probable Program. At that time he made a dumb mistake which led to him receiving two Article 15's. He felt that was enough punishment for a Soldier who had never been the subject of any disciplinary action throughout his time serving in the ARNG or on active duty during training. The Army was his only means of survival and he wanted to complete his 4-year obligation and continue on with his life. He deserved a chance. 8. On 8 August 1983, the applicant's company and battalion commanders waived a rehabilitative transfer and recommended the applicant be discharged for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. 9. On 15 August 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge. 10. Accordingly, he was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 19 August 1983. He was credited with completing 6 months and 11 days of net active service during this period. His service was characterized as under honorable conditions. 11. There is no evidence he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitation for an upgrade of his general discharge. 12. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 13-2 stated that commanders would separate a Soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it was clearly established that the Soldier would not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. The seriousness of the circumstances was such that the Soldier’s retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale. The service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance would be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions (general) as warranted by their military records. b. Paragraph 3-7a stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. 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 inappropriate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant enlisted in the RA on 9 February 1983, completed training, and was awarded MOS 19K. On 22 July 1983, his company commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, as evidenced by two Article 15's in a 2-week period. He consulted with counsel and acknowledged the proposed separation action. The separation authority approved his discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge. He was discharged accordingly on 19 August 1983. 2. The evidence shows his administrative discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable law and regulation in effect at the time with no indication of procedural error which would have jeopardized his rights. He provide no evidence and his military records contain none which would support upgrading his general discharge. 3. Without evidence to the contrary, it appears the characterization of his discharge was commensurate with the reason for discharge in accordance with the governing regulation in effect at the time. 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) AR20150004242 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004242 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1