BOARD DATE: 25 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002278 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: 25 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002278 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: 25 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002278 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 general discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states when he was offered the general discharge, he was told it could be converted to an honorable discharge after a period of time. He does not remember exactly what the period of time was because this happened more than 50 years ago. He is trying to get it done before he passes. 3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge). 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 27 September 1963 and he held military occupational specialty 630.00 (Automobile Maintenance Helper). He served in Korea from 18 February to 21 October 1964. 3. While in Korea, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on: * 17 August 1964, for being absent from his appointed place of duty * 19 August 1964, for being apprehended off post, out of uniform, and with no authorized pass in his possession 4. On 5 September 1964, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of one specification of damaging a 1/4-ton military truck through neglect by driving it into a ditch and two specifications of wrongfully appropriating two military trucks. The court sentenced him to perform hard labor without confinement for 45 days, a reduction to pay grade E-1, and a forfeiture of $60 pay for 1 month. The convening authority approved the sentence on 11 September 1964. 5. On 11 September 1964, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. A Neuropsychiatric Services Certificate shows he was examined at the request of his commanding officer. The examination revealed: * the applicant had had numerous difficulties in his life and never managed to finish high school * he suffered from emotional instability reaction; his condition was not amenable to medical or psychiatric treatment in the military setting * he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and had the capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings * there was no disqualifying mental defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels; separation was recommended 6. On 22 September 1964, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Inaptitude or Unsuitability) by reason of unsuitability. The immediate commander stated: a. The applicant was a young, immature individual who had been counseled many times about his conduct and efficiency to no avail; his attitude, appearance, and conduct were a disgrace to the military service. b. There were two incidents that indicated he had an attitude towards the military and a rebellion at authority. First, he was apprehended on the streets dressed in only shorts and later climbed the fence. Second, he was detailed as private of the guard and upon inspection, his weapon was dirty. He was told to clean his weapon and report to duty, but he failed to report. He went to the post theater instead and stated he did not feel like reporting to guard duty. 7. On 22 September 1964, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification memorandum to separate him for unsuitability. He acknowledged that he had been counseled and advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and he was afforded the opportunity to request counsel but he declined. He further waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf. 8. On 24 September 1964, having determined that the applicant was unsuitable for further military service, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 by reason of unsuitability and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. 9. The applicant was accordingly discharged on 21 October 1964. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he completed a total of 1 year and 25 days of creditable active military service. He was assigned separation program number (SPN) 260 (Inaptitude). 10. 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. REFERENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability. Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that: the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant discharge for disability. Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism, and homosexuality. Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications are involved, the medical officer must be a psychiatrist, if one was available. A general or honorable discharge was considered appropriate. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) currently provides the policies and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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. 3. Appendix A (SPN and Authority Governing Separations) of Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) provided for an SPN and corresponding reason for separation/discharge. The SPN (later renamed separation program designator) are three-character alphabetic combinations which identify reasons for and types of separation from active duty. The SPN of "260" was the code assigned to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 by reason of inaptitude. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence of record shows the applicant demonstrated he could not or would not meet the acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel. Accordingly, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time, with no procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. 2. The evidence of record also shows the applicant's quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. His record of service included failure to respond to rehabilitative efforts, two instances of NJP, and a court-martial conviction. 3. The Army does not currently have nor did ever have a policy wherein a characterization of service is upgraded due to the passage of time. Based on his record of indiscipline, the separation authority determined his service did not rise to the level required for 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) AR20160002278 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002278 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2