BOARD DATE: 15 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002626 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: 15 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002626 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 BOARD DATE: 15 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002626 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 under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service to fully honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his characterization of service should be upgraded because he entered the service to improve himself and to gain better skills. The Army did not allow him to learn. He is a slow learner, but he tried hard to do his best. The Army wanted professionals and he just wanted to do his best. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214. 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. On 27 December 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer). He was subsequently assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington. 3. On 29 January 1981, the applicant was counseled by his squad leader and directed to see the platoon leader for disciplinary action. He was counseled about his attitude, lack of respect for senior noncommissioned officers, and the marginal condition of his appearance. He was pending non-judicial punishment (NJP). The applicant acknowledged the counseling. 4. On 30 January 1981, the platoon leader counseled the applicant, pointing out that he lacked respect for his superiors. His attitude and appearance for the previous month and a half had been marginal and undesirable. The applicant acknowledged the counseling. 5. On 17 February 1981, the applicant received NJP for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 12 to 15 January 1981. His punishment was reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $116 pay, and 7 days in correctional custody. 6. On 21 March 1981, the applicant was counseled by the company commander for his poor personal appearance and hygiene. The commander reminded him that he had been counseled twice by the battalion commander and once previously by the company commander for being unshaven. 7. On 3 August 1981, the company commander counseled the applicant concerning inefficiency and apathy in the safeguarding and maintenance of government equipment. He had lost property valued at $79.09. He was also counseled on his general downward trend in appearance, attitude, and teamwork. 8. On 18 August 1981, the company commander counseled the applicant on his overall poor performance, apathy, and negative attitude. He was informed that he was being considered for elimination under Chapter 5 or Chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) for apathy. He was given a 30-day period in which to show improvement, if he wanted to stay in the Army. 9. On 18 September 1981, the applicant received NJP for being AWOL from 3 to 7 August 1981 and he was absent from his place of duty on 17 August 1981. His punishment was forfeiture of $250 pay for 2 months, extra duty for 45 days, and restriction. 10. On 30 October 1981, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to separate him because of a lack of motivation and self-discipline. He had constantly maintained a poor attitude and demonstrated no promotion potential. The applicant acknowledged this notification and voluntarily consented to be discharged. He elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf. He further indicated that he understood that if he was issued a General Discharge Certificate he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and acknowledged that he was provided the opportunity to consult with an officer of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. 11. On 2 November 1981, the applicant’s commander recommended that he be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31. In support of the recommendation, the commander stated that in his judgment the applicant would not have participated satisfactorily in future military training. 12. On 2 November 1981, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate). 13. Accordingly, on 10 November 1981, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions and issued a General Discharge Certificate. He had completed 1 year, 10 months, and 5 days of creditable active service. 14. 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. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. b. Paragraph 5-31 of that regulation provided the authorization for separation under the Expeditious Discharge Program for the convenience of the government. A general discharge under honorable conditions was normally issued. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends his under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service should be upgraded to fully honorable because he was a slow learner. 2. The evidence shows the applicant had been counseled for his attitude, failure to maintain his equipment, and to present a proper appearance. He also received NJP twice for being AWOL. 3. The applicant’s voluntary administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. The characterization of service he received was commensurate with the reason for his discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005190 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2