RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 December 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070010496 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano Director Mr. Dean L. Turnbull Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. John N. Slone Chairperson Ms. Marla J. N. Troup Member Mr. Thomas M. Ray Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he was told his general discharge would be automatically upgraded to an honorable discharge 6 months after leaving the military. He states that he never received any notification of such a change and he did nothing wrong to receive a general discharge. Also, he was not promoted in rank because there was a freeze on promotions. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty). 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's military records show that he entered active duty on   8 December 1972. He completed all the necessary training and was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 71B (Clerk Typist). 3. Between 13 September 1973 and 22 April 1974, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to obey a lawful order from a commissioned officer, dereliction of duty, willfully disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer, and for being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 10-11 April 1974. 4. On 2 May 1974, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for participating in a fist-fight with another Soldier. 5. The applicant's military service records show that he was counseled on   15 April and 15 May 1974 for his attitude, conduct, and unsatisfactory performance of duty. He was also advised of the full meaning and impact of a discharge from military service for reasons of unfitness or unsuitability. In this counseling the applicant was informed that he had been afforded four rehabilitative transfers within his unit in an effort to assist him in overcoming his deficiencies. The applicant acknowledged and concurred with the reasons for the counseling. 6. On 12 July 1974, the applicant's commander recommended his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Qualitative Management Program, grade E-1 and E-2, for failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement. The applicant's commander recommended he be given a general discharge. 7. On 23 August 1974, the recommendation for separation was approved by the appropriate authority. 8. On 5 September 1974, the applicant was given a General Discharge Certificate. He had completed a total of 1 year, 8 months, and 28 days of active service. 9. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 10. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel. It provided, in pertinent part, for discharge due to failure to demonstrate potential to justify advancement to the grade of E-3 after attaining the normal time-in-service and time-in-grade criteria for promotion to E-3, without a waiver. The purpose of this policy is to provide commanders appropriate means for separation for personnel before board or punitive action becomes necessary. 11. Army Regulation 635-200, 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual. 12. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends that his general discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. His discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and there is no indication of procedural errors or injustice that would tend to jeopardize his rights. The evidence provides sufficient basis for a general discharge for failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement. 3. The applicant states that he was led to believe his discharge would be upgraded after 6 months is noted. However, the Army does not have or ever had a policy for an automatic upgrade. 4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must satisfactorily show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit sufficient evidence that would satisfy this requirement; therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___JNS__ __MJNT_ __TMR__ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _____John N. Slone____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20071218 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION (NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.