IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 November 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100013587 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 (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). 2. The applicant states he understands the honorable portion of his characterization of service but not the "under" portion. 3. The applicant provides no supporting documentation. 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 was inducted on 6 March 1963, completed training, and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 534 (Chemical Staff Specialist) with basic airborne training and a secondary MOS of 421 (Small Arms Repairman). 3. On 8 August 1963, a summary court-martial found the applicant guilty of failure to follow a lawful order of his class officer. 4. The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice as follows on: * 23 October 1963, for disrespectful language toward a noncommissioned officer (NCO) * 1 August 1964, for failure to follow a lawful order from an NCO 5. On 25 February 1965, the applicant's unit commander initiated a bar to reenlistment. The unit commander stated the applicant had been with the unit for 10 months and was considered a substandard Soldier. The unit commander noted the applicant's two NJP's and summary court-martial and described him as having habitual misconduct. He rated the applicant's conduct and efficiency as fair. 6. On 5 March 1965, the date of the expiration of his term of obligated active service, he was released from active duty. He had two years of creditable active duty and no lost time. He received a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service. 7. The applicant did not serve overseas and was not awarded any personal decorations. 8. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It provides the following at Chapter 3: a. paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge (HD) is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty; and b. paragraph 3-7b provides that a GD is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an HD; DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant states he understands the honorable portion of his characterization but not the under. 2. At the time of his release from active duty the applicant had a local bar to reenlistment and was considered a substandard Soldier. 3. In accordance Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 3, his service was not so meritorious as to warrant a fully honorable discharge. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service. 4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement. 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) AR20100013587 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100013587 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1