BOARD DATE: 23 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016790 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: 23 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016790 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: 23 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016790 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 discharge from general to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he enlisted in the U.S. Army and tried to be a good Soldier. However, his noncommissioned officer (NCO) was against people from New York and he constantly put him down. He called him (and other Soldiers) "maggots and all kinds of names." The applicant adds that an upgrade of his discharge will correct this injustice. 3. The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his application. 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 29 December 1973 for a period of 2 years. 3. Item 44 (Time Lost) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was reported in an absent without leave (AWOL) status for the following periods: * 22 to 28 February 1974 * 6 to 14 March 1974 4. On 14 March 1974, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL from 6 to 14 March 1974. 5. On 16 May 1974, the commander Company B, 4th Battalion Third Infantry Training Brigade (provisional) notified the applicant that he was being recommended for separation from the service under the provisions of (UP) Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 (Unsuitability). In paragraph 3 (Reason for recommendation) the commander states the applicant lacked the ability to be a Soldier, had insufficient knowledge to perform his job properly, did not take his drill sergeants seriously, constantly required close supervision, lacked self-discipline to do the simplest task on his own, was recycled in advanced individual training (AIT), and received an Article 15 for being AWOL. In addition the commander noted that the applicant was counseled on three occasions, was recycled in basic combat training (BCT) and received NJP for being AWOL. He also reported the applicant's service and conduct/efficiency, as follows: * BCT (21 February to 17 March 1974) – Unsatisfactory/Fair * AIT (18 March to 13 June 1974) – Unsatisfactory/Unsatisfactory 6. On 23 May 1974, the applicant underwent a mental status examination. The report of mental status examination found the applicant had no significant mental illness, was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, able to adhere to the right, had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings, and he met retention standards. The evaluation shows the applicant’s probable effectiveness for further rehabilitation was poor. 7. On 3 June 1974, the applicant acknowledged notification of the basis for the contemplated separation action being initiated against him and of the procedures and rights available to him. He acknowledged he understood that if he was issued a general discharge he could expect to encounter considerable prejudice in civilian life. He waived consideration of his case before a board of officers, declined to seek counsel, and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf. 8. On 5 June 1974, the applicant’s intermediate commander recommended approval of the applicant’s discharge. 9. On 7 June 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation action and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 10. On 19 June 1974, the applicant was discharged UP chapter 13, AR 635-200, with a general discharge. He completed 5 months and 7 days of creditable active service and he had 15 days of lost time. 11. The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant's request for review of his discharge. On 16 December 1983, the ADRB determined the reason for his discharge and the character of his service were both proper and equitable. The ADRB denied the relief requested. But he was issued a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) to administratively correct some discrepancies or errors on his DD Form 214. REFERENCES: AR 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 13, in effect at that time, provided for separation of enlisted members found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service. Separation action would be taken when, in the commander's judgment, the individual would not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. A Soldier separated because of unsuitability under this regulation was furnished either an honorable or general discharge certificate, as warranted by their military record. b. 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. c.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends his general discharge should be upgraded because he tried to be a good Soldier, but he was treated poorly by an NCO. Other than his own statement, there is no evidence of the alleged poor treatment. 2. The applicant's discharge UP AR 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. All requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. In addition, the reason for and type of discharge directed were appropriate and equitable. 3. During the period of service under review the applicant was recycled in BCT and counseled on his substandard performance on at least three occasions. In addition, he failed to finish AIT, received NJP, had 15 days of lost time, and he completed less than 6 months of his 2-year service obligation. Based on the evidence of record, the applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel to merit an honorable discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150016790 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150016790 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2