BOARD DATE: 24 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004579 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 his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states: a. He was 17 years old when he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) to be an Engineer Surveyor. He was subsequently sent to Fort Sill, OK, to train to become an Artillery Surveyor. After he struggled with the classroom material he was dropped from the class and sent to Fort Jackson, SC, to train as a Personnel Records Specialist. b. This was not close to what he had enlisted for. He tried to make the best of the situation, but ultimately received a general discharge under honorable conditions. He wanted to be in the Army Corps of Engineers and he ended up being a clerk. This was not what he enlisted for; therefore, he believes his discharge was unjust. 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence. 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 RA on 2 February 1976 for 3 years at 17 years and 6 days of age. His record contains DA Form 3286-18 (Statements for Enlistment – Part VI – United States Army Special Unit Enlistment Option) in which it is stated in Section III (Applicable to All Applicants), 1f., that in the event he failed to meet any of the established prerequisites for this option or became medically or otherwise disqualified for training or duty in his designated military occupational specialty (MOS), he would be trained and utilized in accordance with the needs of the Army and will be required to complete the term of service for which he enlisted. 3. His records contain a memorandum, dated 17 June 1976, which shows the applicant was unable to retain the subject material presented during classroom instruction at the U.S. Army Field Artillery School. The applicant had failed two of three exams and counseling and extra instruction failed to improve his grades; therefore, it was recommended he be relieved from the course due to academic deficiency. 4. The applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) indicates he attended advanced individual training at Fort Jackson, SC. He completed training and he was awarded MOS 75D (Personnel Records Specialist) on 27 August 1976. 5. His record reveals a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 19 October 1976, for without authority, absenting himself from his appointed place of duty for the period 1 through 5 October 1976. 6. On 12 November 1976, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) in accordance with chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel). His commander stated the reasons for this action were: the applicant's failure to report to duty on 1 to 5 October 1976, and his record of Article 15, dated 19 October 1976. His commander noted the applicant had shown complete apathy toward the military and lack of responsibility toward his duties. He informed the applicant that if issued a less than honorable discharge he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. The commander also informed him that he intended to recommend issuance of a General Discharge Certificate with his service characterized as under honorable conditions. He was also advised of his rights to consult with legal counsel to discuss the ramifications of this recommendation, to submit a statement in his own behalf, to decline the discharge, or to waive any of the aforementioned rights. 7. On 12 November 1976, he acknowledged receipt of the commander's notification of intent to separate him under the provisions of the EDP and he voluntarily consented to discharge from the U.S. Army. He acknowledged he understood that if he were issued a general discharge under honorable conditions he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. He acknowledged he had been provided the opportunity to consult with an officer of the Judge Advocate General's Corps. He also declined to submit a statement on his own behalf. 8. On 12 November 1976, the applicant's immediate commander recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of the EDP and furnished a General Discharge Certificate. The commander's reason for requesting the action was that the applicant did not possess or demonstrate the traits and qualities expected of a Soldier. His job efficiency, personal appearance, military bearing, judgment and person to person contact with fellow Soldiers were far below acceptable standards. It was noted the applicant would not adjust socially or emotionally to the Army. He lacked initiative and motivation and deteriorated the morale of the personnel within his duty section. In addition, he had received an Article 15 for being absent without authority and had a record of several traffic violations. 9. On 12 November 1976, the separation authority approved his discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. 10. On 17 November 1976, he was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he completed a total of 9 months and 12 days of creditable active military service. 11. There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 12. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The pertinent paragraph in chapter 5 provided that members who had completed at least six months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged under the EDP. It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary. No member would be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge. Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate was predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member's current enlistment with due consideration for the member's age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 13. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that 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's contention that his general discharge under honorable conditions should be upgraded to an honorable discharge was carefully considered. 2. The evidence of record shows he voluntarily consented to be discharged under the EDP. His discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. Considering all the facts of the case, the type of discharge directed and the reason for separation were appropriate. 3. His record of service shows he did not possess or demonstrate the traits and qualities expected of a Soldier. His job efficiency, personal appearance, military bearing, judgment and person to person contact with fellow Soldiers were judged to be far below acceptable standards. It was noted the applicant would not adjust socially or emotionally to the Army and that he lacked initiative and motivation in addition to having received an Article 15 for being absent without authority. His service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct or performance of duty for Army personnel. 4. The applicant stated he entered active duty at 17 years of age; however, there is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service. 5. Based on the foregoing, there is insufficient evidence to grant 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) AR20150004579 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004579 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1