BOARD DATE: 2 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015465 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 BOARD DATE: 2 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015465 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. BOARD DATE: 2 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015465 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 under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states he felt "targeted" by other Soldiers and noncommissioned officers (NCOs), who gave false information/charges that resulted in his Article 15s. 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his request. 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 15 April 1974. He entered active duty, completed his initial entry training, and was awarded military occupational specialty 55B (Ammunition Storage Operations Specialist). Upon the completion of his initial entry training, he was assigned to the 501st Ordnance Company, 84th Ordnance Battalion, Federal Republic of Germany. The highest rank/grade he held while on active duty was private first class (PFC)/E-3. 3. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on the following occasions: a. on 12 August 1974, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on or about 6 August 1974; b. on 23 October 1974, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on or about 10 October 1974; c. on 14 January 1975, for unlawfully entry in a government building on or about 21 December 1974, and for being absent without leave from his unit from on or about 1 January 1975 through on or about 2 January 1975; d. on 23 January 1975, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on or about 10 January 1975; and e. on 5 November 1975, for committing an assault against a fellow enlisted Soldier by striking him with a dangerous weapon, to wit: a cane, on or about 18 October 1975. 4. On 10 February 1976, the applicant was informed by his immediate commander that action was being initiated to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37, under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) with a General Discharge Certificate. a. His commander cited the reasons for the proposed separation action as the applicant's constant unwillingness to respond positively to numerous corrective counselling, his obvious contempt toward authority, and his unwillingness to maintain the level of standards expected of a Soldier. The commander also indicated his frequent failure to go to his appointed place of duty and recalcitrant attitude that resulted in a total of five Article 15s for misconduct. b. The commander informed him that he had the right to decline this type of discharge, in which he may be processed for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. 5. On 10 February 1976, the applicant acknowledged notification of his proposed separation from the Army. He indicated he voluntarily consented to the separation, elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 6. On 24 February 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the Expeditious Discharge Program and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate. 7. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 8 April 1976, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms his service was characterized as under honorable conditions. He was discharged in the rank/grade of private (PV2)/E-2 and completed 1 year, 11 months, and 24 days of total active service. 8. The available records are void of any documentation that indicates he was "targeted" by his fellow Soldiers, NCOs, or members of his chain of command. 9. There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: 1. Department of the Army began testing the EDP in October 1973. In a message, dated 8 November 1974, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel announced the expansion of the EDP. The program provided for the separation of Soldiers whose acceptability, performance of duty, and/or potential for continued effective service fell below the standards required for retention in the Army. Soldiers could be separated under this program when subjective evaluation by their commanders identified them as lacking qualities for continued military service because of attitude, motivation, self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential. Soldiers had to consent to separation under this program in order for commanders to separate them under the provisions of the EDP. Otherwise, a commander was required to separate Soldiers under other provisions of the regulation, which in most cases resulted in an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Individuals discharged under this provision of the regulation were issued either a general or honorable discharge. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-7a states 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 under honorable conditions (general) discharge was carefully considered. 2. The applicant contends he felt he was being "targeted" by his fellow Soldiers and his NCOs were given inaccurate information about him that resulted in him receiving numerous Article 15s. There is no evidence that corroborates his claim. 3. His record contains five Article 15s for violating numerous articles of the UCMJ that is, failing to be at his appointed place of duty on four occasions and committing an assault against a fellow Soldier. This evidence of record shows the applicant demonstrated that he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army. Accordingly, his immediate commander initiated separation actions against him. 4. He was notified of the reasons for his recommended separation and he authenticated a statement with his signature acknowledging he understood the prejudices associated with his discharge and voluntarily consented to the separation in accordance with the applicable regulation at the time. 5. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations then in effect with no indication of procedural errors that would have jeopardized his rights. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015465 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015465 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2