BOARD DATE: 1 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001666 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: 1 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001666 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: 1 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001666 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, the separation authority and narrative reason for separation be changed to show he received a hardship discharge. 2. The applicant states after his father passed away, he requested a hardship discharge so he could help his mother, because she needed help. He contends he was allowed to go home and he was unaware that he was discharged due to unsatisfactory performance, as he never signed his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). He further contends he never received counseling or rehabilitation prior to his discharge. 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 Regular Army on 24 March 1982. 3. While assigned to Fort Gordon, GA, for training, he was counseled on several occasions between 12 July and 26 November 1982 for the following offenses: * drinking on duty * being in unauthorized areas * failure to obey orders * numerous infractions of failing to report to physical training formation 4. His record also reveals he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on: * 29 September 1982, for failing to go to formation * 12 October 1982, for breaking restriction * 26 November 1982, for failing to go to his prescribed place of duty 5. On 9 December 1982, the applicant's commander notified the applicant of his intention to recommend him for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. 6. On the same date, the applicant received counsel and acknowledged receipt of the commander's notification. He acknowledged he had been advised of his rights and of the nature of the administrative discharge. He also acknowledged he understood he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued to him. He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. 7. On 15 December 1983, he submitted a statement in his own behalf. In his statement he indicated he had thoroughly enjoyed his time spent in the military and he had faithfully and honorably served both God and his country, regardless of the lack of interest and cooperation exhibited by some cadre. 8. A statement, dated 6 January 1983, shows the applicant's commander noted the applicant's rehabilitation and training attempts had failed and he believed further attempts would probably fail as well. 9. On 18 January 1983, the applicant's commander initiated a recommendation to separate the applicant due to unsatisfactory performance. The commander also requested the requirement for rehabilitative transfer be waived because it would not be in the best interest of the Army. On 19 January 1983, his intermediate commander also recommended that he be discharged. 10. On 28 January 1983, the appropriate authority approved the separation recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. On the same date the applicant went on excess leave pending completion of the discharge process and he remained on excess leave until he was discharged. 11. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 3 February 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, due to unsatisfactory performance. He completed 10 months and 10 days of active service and he had 7 days of excess leave; therefore, he was not available to sign his DD Form 214. 12. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 13. The applicant's record is void of a request for a hardship discharge. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provides that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests the separation authority and narrative reason for separation be changed to show he received a hardship discharge. 2. His record of indiscipline includes numerous counseling's for failing to follow orders and three NJPs. The evidence of record shows after several attempts to rehabilitate the applicant failed, he was notified he was being recommended for discharge due to unsatisfactory performance. He acknowledged he received legal counsel, he was advised of his rights, and of the nature of such a discharge. 3. On 28 January 1983, the applicant went on excess leave pending completion of the discharge process. He remained in an excess leave status until he was discharged on 3 February 1983 under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, due to unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. Therefore, he was not available to sign his DD Form 214. 4. His record is void of a request for a hardship discharge. 5. Absent evidence to the contrary, his administrative discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. His separation authority and narrative reason for separation are supported by the evidence of record. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001666 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001666 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2