IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 March 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150007628 BOARD VOTE: ________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ___X___ ____X___ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 March 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150007628 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. Enclosure 1 IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 March 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150007628 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 under honorable conditions (general) discharge to fully honorable. 2. The applicant states he does not believe "they" treated him fairly during his service nor did "they" explain why he was getting out of the Army. 3. The applicant does not provide any 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. Enclosure 2 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 November 1965 and he held military occupational specialty 11F (Infantry Operations and Intelligence Specialist). He was honorably discharged on 3 April 1967 to accept an appointment as a commissioned officer. He was issued a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) that captured his enlisted active service. 3. He was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer on 4 April 1967. He attended the Adjutant General Officer Basic Course from 4 April to 30 June 1967. His DA Form 1059 (Academic Report) shows: * he had a major problem with academics and below average aptitude * he lacked motivation and initiative and despite counseling, he could not pass some exams * he was considered a marginal officer * the quality of his participation was below average 4. Following schooling, the applicant was assigned to Fort Campbell, KY, where he was assigned or reassigned multiple times as a rehabilitative transfer. 5. On 2 February 1968, his senior commander recommended suspension of all favorable actions pertaining to him. He stated: * the applicant was assigned to Company E, 7th Battalion, 2nd Training Brigade on 25 January 1968 as a rehabilitative transfer * his first assignment prior to this was also a rehabilitative transfer * there were several creditors who stated they had attempted to collect payments on debts that he owed, without success * the applicant was being investigated for fraudulent payment of a check to the Post Exchange * the applicant was also being investigated for allegedly failing to disclose an amount due to the Government when he requested temporary pay 6. On 9 February 1968, the applicant's immediate commander rendered a performance statement. He stated: * the applicant's performance had been unsatisfactory and was considered below average * he was initially assigned to the Reception Station where he was overzealous towards the receptees * he was reassigned to another battalion in September 1967 but returned to the Reception Station and proceeded to conduct his own inspection in an area that he had no authority * in October 1967, he was admonished for associating with trainees and despite this admonishment, he disregarded it and socially entertained trainees over the weekend * he was admitted to the hospital and although he had a successful operation, he required additional surgery * he was delinquent in his officer's club and telephone bills, * he was indebted to numerous creditors * despite repeated counseling, he failed to respond well and continued to be a source of embarrassment to the officer corps 7. On 19 February 1968, the applicant's immediate commander recommended elimination action from military service be initiated in accordance with paragraphs 11a(2) and (3) of Army Regulation 635-105 (Personnel Separations – Officer Resignations and Discharges). He cited the reasons as: * mismanagement of personal affairs that brought discredit upon military service * failure to meet personal financial obligations (dereliction of duty) * having an indifferent attitude toward repayment of just debts 8. On 19 February 1968, the applicant's senior commander recommended approval of the elimination action. He stated the applicant('s): * consistently mismanaged personal affairs and failed to meet his personal financial obligations * performance of duty had been marginal at best and despite multiple rehabilitative transfers, all efforts to resolve his financial difficulties and improve his performance had been unsuccessful * displayed an immature attitude towards his responsibilities 9. On 26 February 1968 (resubmitted on 20 March 1968), after having been informed that he was being considered for elimination, the applicant submitted a voluntary request for resignation from the Army in lieu of further elimination proceedings, under section IV of Army Regulation 635-120 (Officer Resignation and Discharges). He acknowledged that: * he had been afforded the opportunity to appear before a board of officers with counsel but he waived this right * he had been advised prior to submitting this request of his right to consult with and be represented by counsel but he waived this right * he was making this request voluntarily and he was aware of the implications of this voluntary action 10. On 23 March 1968, the applicant's intermediate and senior commanders recommended the elimination action be approved with the issuance of a general discharge. They stated: * since being commissioned, the applicant had mismanaged his personal affairs as to bring discredit upon the military service * his failure to meet personal financial obligations clearly indicated moral dereliction of duties * his arrival to the command was immediately followed by creditors calling and despite counseling, he showed an indifferent attitude toward repayment of his debts * efforts to contact his creditors were hampered by him not disclosing all creditors and delinquent accounts 11. On 28 March 1968, the commanding general (CG) of the U.S. Army Training Center, Fort Campbell, also recommended approval of the separation action and indicated the applicant had been counseled and elected to resign in lieu of the elimination action. 12. In June 1968, the chain of command, including the CG, 6th Infantry Division, Fort Campbell, recommended approval of the resignation in lieu of elimination action, with the issuance of a general discharge. The CG stated that after a review of the applicant's indebtedness and his failure to acknowledge his financial responsibilities and make payment(s), his resignation in lieu of elimination was in the best interests of the service. 13. On 2 July 1968, by order of the Secretary of the Army, Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) approved the applicant's resignation in lieu of elimination action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-120, chapter 4, and ordered the applicant discharged. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 10 July 1968. 14. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-120, chapter 4, resignation in lieu of elimination, with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. He completed 1 year, 3 months, and 7 days total active service. 15. 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. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-120, in effect at the time, prescribed the procedures whereby an officer on active duty could tender his/her resignation or be discharged. Chapter 5 of the regulation specified an officer could submit a resignation for the good of the service prior to general court-martial charges being preferred against him/her and prior to being recommended for elimination. A resignation for the good of the service, when approved by HQDA, was normally accepted as being under other than honorable conditions, in which case the officer would be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. If the resignation was accepted by HQDA under honorable conditions, the officer would be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. 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. 2. Army Regulation 635-100 (Personnel Separations – Officer Personnel), in effect at the time, provided the authority for the separation of officers from active duty. Paragraph 1-5 specified the character of discharge would be predicated on the officer’s behavior and performance of duty while a member of a military service. Characterization normally would be based on a pattern of behavior and duty performance rather than an isolated incident. There were circumstances, however, in which conduct reflected by a single incident could provide the basis for characterization. An officer would normally be furnished an honorable discharge unless conditions existed or as directed by the Secretary of the Army. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant served as a commissioned officer from 4 April 1967 to 10 July 1968. His service was marred by poor academic performance, extensive indebtedness, indifferent attitude, and marginal performance. 2. Since his appointment as a commissioned officer, the applicant mismanaged his personal affairs to a degree that brought discredit upon the service. His failure to meet his financial obligations clearly indicated a moral dereliction of duty. Accordingly, his chain of command initiated elimination action against him. 3. He was advised of his rights to include having a board of officers hear his case and/or legal counsel represent him, but he waived his rights and elected to submit his voluntary resignation in lieu of the elimination action. His chain of command recommended approval. HQDA approved his discharge with the issuance of a general characterization of service. 4. His contention that he was treated unfairly is not supported by the evidence. He was transferred multiple times in an effort to rehabilitate him and improve his performance and attitude but he failed in each instance. Additionally, his contention that they never explained to him why he was getting out of the Army is not supported. He was clearly advised of his rights, understood the elimination action, and voluntarily requested his resignation in lieu of the elimination action. 5. Based on his record of indebtedness, dereliction of duties, marginal duty performance, and indifferent attitude, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel and did not rise to the level normally associated with an honorable discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings @#!CASENUMBER Enclosure 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150007628 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1