IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 MARCH 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150008153 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: 1 MARCH 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150008153 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: 1 MARCH 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150008153 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, in effect, an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states: * he was young and uneducated with no direction in life * he was angry because he enlisted under the buddy system with his friend, but they were not stationed together * after his time in the Army he turned his life around * he became educated, a husband, a father, and a productive member of society * he is no longer young, stupid, angry, and irresponsible 3. The applicant provides: * résumé * American InterContinental University Bachelor of Information Technology Network Administration degree certificate * Walden University Master of Information Systems Management degree certificate * three certifications 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 18 July 1979 at 22 years of age. His DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States) does not show he was guaranteed the Buddy Team Enlistment Option and there is no evidence of record showing with whom he was assigned after his enlistment. 3. Headquarters, The School Brigade, U.S. Army Air Defense School, Special Court-Martial Order Number 4, dated 10 April 1980 shows he was charged with and found guilty of: * three specifications of disobeying a lawful order on 25 February 1980 * absenting himself without authority from his unit for over 8 hours on 25 February 1980 4. He was sentenced to forfeiture of $150.00 per month for 3 months, reduction to the rank/grade of private/E-1, and hard labor without confinement for 60 days. 5. A Unit Commanders Report for Psychiatric Examination, dated 20 March 1981, shows an evaluation was requested by his commander for the purpose of discharge in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). Item 21 (Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP)) shows he accepted NJP under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 18 September (presumably 1980) for communicating a threat and on 24 February 1981 for being absent without leave (AWOL). His commander stated he had no potential for retention in the Army. Despite intensive counseling, guidance, and efforts to solve his personal problems, he continued to be totally unproductive with no desire to change. 6. A DA Form 3822-1 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 30 March 1981, shows the applicant had no significant mental illness, was mentally responsible, was able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings, and met the retention standards prescribed in chapter 3, Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). He was psychiatrically cleared for any unit administrative action. 7. On 20 April 1981, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of paragraph  5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)) of Army Regulation 635-200. The commander stated the reasons for this action were the applicant's lack of self-discipline, poor attitude toward retention on active duty, lack of motivation to improve performance, and lack of positive response to counseling and disciplinary action under the UCMJ. The commander informed him that he intended to recommend receipt of a General Discharge Certificate. He informed him that the issuance of a less than honorable discharge could preclude his eligibility for many or all veterans' benefits and he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. He also advised him of his right to consult with legal counsel, to submit a statement in his own behalf, to decline the discharge, or to waive any of the aforementioned rights. 8. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's notification of intent to separate him under the provisions of the EDP and voluntarily consented to the separation action. He consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation from the Army under the provisions of chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200, the effect on his future enlistment eligibility in the Army, the possible effects of a general discharge, and the procedures and rights available to him. He acknowledged he understood that if he were issued a General Discharge Certificate, he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. 9. On 20 April 1981, the separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 10. On 20 May 1981, he was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP). His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he completed 1 year, 10 months, and 3 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. He provided a copy of his résumé along with numerous educational certificates, delineating his educational and professional work accomplishments from January 2001 through the present. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 5, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. Paragraph 5-31 provided that Soldiers who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated 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, would be discharged under the EDP. It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary. No Soldier would be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge. b. 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: 1. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions was carefully considered. 2. His records reveal a disciplinary history that includes the acceptance of NJP on two occasions for being AWOL and for communicating a threat as well as conviction by a special court-martial for three specifications of disobeying a lawful order and for being AWOL. 3. He consulted with counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation from the Army under the provisions of chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200, the effect on his future enlistment eligibility in the Army, the possible effects of a general discharge, and the procedures and rights available to him. 4. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, are requests for discharge for Soldiers who had demonstrated 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, would be discharged under the EDP. It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary. There is no evidence indicating he was not properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time, all requirements of law and regulations were not met, or his rights were not fully protected throughout the separation process. He was psychiatrically cleared for administrative discharge. Further, his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. 5. The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because he was young and irresponsible at the time of his service and was under the impression he would be assigned with his friend. Records show the applicant was 22 years of age at the time of his enlistment. However, there is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service or that he was ever guaranteed he would be assigned to a unit with his friend. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150008153 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2