IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 October 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100011901 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 that his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states that the school he is attending offers a veterans' discount, but will not accept a general under honorable conditions discharge and he is trying to obtain a degree for a better career and financial security. 3. The applicant provided no additional documentary evidence in support of this 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, and 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 records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 November 1976. He completed the basic combat and advanced individual training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 64C (motor transport operator). The highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2. 3. Records show the applicant was punished under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order on 16 December 1976. 4. On 11 July 1977, the applicant's chain of command initiated an expeditious discharge for his inability to adapt socially and emotionally to Army life. 5. On 11 July 1977, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for his contemplated separation with a general under honorable conditions discharge and its effect and rights available to him. 6. The applicant further acknowledged he understood that if his general under honorable conditions discharge request were approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. 7. On 14 September 1977, the separation authority approved the command's request for discharge under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) and directed that he receive a general under honorable conditions discharge. On 20 September 1977, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active duty) he was issued confirms he completed a total of 9 months and 22 days of active service with 46 days of excess leave. 8. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-37 of the regulation in effect at the time governed personnel whose performance of duty, acceptability for the Service, and potential for continued effective service fell below the standards required for enlisted personnel in the U.S. Army. 9. 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 or otherwise so meritorious than any characterization would be clearly in appropriate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded was carefully considered and it was determined that there is insufficient evidence to support his request. 2. The ABCMR does not grant requests for an upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans' or medical benefits. 3. The applicant's records show he disobeyed a lawful order. The applicant's chain of command initiated an expeditious discharge for his inability to adapt socially and emotionally to Army life. Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standard of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING _____X___ ____X___ ____X___ 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. ____________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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100011901 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100011901 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1