IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 April 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110019144 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 from the Army National Guard (ARNG) be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect: * He served honorably in Louisiana as a tank driver * He took time off his civilian job several times because no one else would drive tanks across a bridge * He served 6 years * When he moved to Michigan he did not perform tanker duty, he thinks it was paratrooper duty * He was not trained * He did what he was told * He went to all his drills * He was told to clean 3. The applicant provides no documentary evidence. 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 Louisiana ARNG on 23 November 1979 for a period of 6 years. He served as an armor crewman and he was honorably discharged on 23 October 1984 for transfer to the Michigan ARNG. 3. He enlisted in the Michigan ARNG on 24 October 1984 for a period of 1 year. 4. His record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge. However, discharge orders show the applicant was issued a general discharge on 2 August 1985 under the provisions of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), paragraph 7-10r. He was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Individual Ready Reserve). 5. His National Guard Bureau Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) for the period ending 2 August 1985 shows he was discharged on 2 August 1985 with a general discharge under the provisions of NGR 600-200, paragraph 7-10r, for unsatisfactory performance. 6. On 24 April 1991, he was issued an honorable discharge from the Ready Reserve under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel). 7. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 8. NGR 600-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the personnel management of enlisted personnel of the ARNG. Paragraph 7-10r of this regulation stated that a Soldier would be discharged from the ARNG for unsatisfactory participation of members. 9. Army Regulation 135-178 provides for the separation of enlisted personnel of the Army Reserve and ARNG. 10. Army Regulation 135-178 provides, in pertinent part, that 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 military personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The applicant's contentions were carefully considered. However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed his separation processing was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Without the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate with his overall record of service. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. 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) AR20110019144 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110019144 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1