IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 March 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110017396 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 discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect: * he was young and he did not know what he wanted out of life * he is requesting an honorable discharge so that he can get a Veterans' High School Diploma through the Florida Department of Education * he was told to apply to this Board for an upgrade of his discharge 3. The applicant provides a letter from the Florida Department of Education, dated 26 July 2011. 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 21 November 1972. He completed basic combat training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and he was transferred to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on 2 February 1973, to complete advanced individual training. 3. He was counseled on 26 March 1973 for failure to go to morning formation. 4. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 16 May 1973 for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 23 April to 9 May 1973. 5. On 16 May 1973, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the Qualitative Management Program. His commander cited his duty performance and potential for continued service as the bases for his recommendation for discharge. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the recommendation on 16 May 1973. 6. On 31 May 1973, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 7. On 8 June 1973, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) Message 24110Z (i.e., 242110Z) September 1971, for failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion. He completed 6 months and 3 days of active service. 8. A review of the available record does not show that the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. 9. The applicant submits a letter from the Florida Department of Education thanking him for submitting an application for participation in the Florida Veterans' High School Diploma Program. The letter informs him that the Commissioner of Education may award a standard high school diploma to honorably discharged veterans. He was also advised that due to the character of service shown on his DD Form 214 (under honorable conditions) his request was denied. 10. HQDA Message date-time group 242110Z September 1971, in effect at the time, contained the Army policy that authorized the separation of enlisted personnel for failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion or advancement. 11. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contentions have been noted and his supporting evidence has been considered. 2. The fact that he desires to obtain a Veterans State of Florida High School Diploma is not a basis for upgrading his discharge. 3. The available evidence shows he was counseled on 26 March 1973 for failure to go to morning formation and NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 23 April through 9 May 1973. Therefore, the type of discharge he received appropriately reflects his overall record of service. 4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s request should be denied. 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) AR20110017396 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110017396 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1