IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 June 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110023200 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 upgrade of his general discharge. 2. The applicant states he needs an honorable discharge so he can receive medical benefits. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 October 1978, completed training as a food service specialist, was stationed in Germany with an artillery unit, and was advanced to pay grade E-2. 3. The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 15 on three occasions, twice for absence from his place of duty and once for disturbing the peace by fighting. 4. On 29 September 1979, the Battery Commander recommended the applicant for separation with a general discharge under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) and notified the applicant of his administrative processing rights. In addition to the NJP's, the commander noted the applicant had received remedial counseling on six occasions. 5. The applicant consulted with counsel, acknowledged his rights, and indicated that he would submit a statement in his own behalf; however, none is contained in the available records. 6. The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed a general discharge be issued. 7. On 19 October 1979, the applicant was separated with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5 for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. 8. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policy and sets forth the procedure for administrative separation of enlisted personnel. a.  Chapter 5, as then in effect, provided for the EDP.  This program provided that an individual who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who demonstrated (by poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential) that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards could be separated.  Such personnel were issued a general or honorable discharge, as appropriate, except that a recommendation for a general discharge had to be initiated by the immediate commander and the individual had to consult with legal counsel. b. 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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service. 2. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request. 3. In view of the foregoing there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. 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) AR20110023200 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110023200 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1