IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 August 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130000483 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 an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. 2. He states he was young and he was "not given a chance to be corrected by other means." He states he recently had surgery to remove bunions and to correct a hammer toe. He attributes the medical conditions to Army physical training he was made to perform in combat boots. He states his walking may be slightly imbalanced for the rest of his life. 3. He provides a State of North Carolina Order and Certificate of Name Change with related correspondence. 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 born on 4 March 1962. On 24 March 1979 at 17 years of age, he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). His records show he successfully completed basic combat training (BCT) and advanced individual training (AIT). 3. On 4 September 1980, he enlisted in the USAR Delayed Enlistment Program (DEP) for subsequent enlistment in the Regular Army not later than 18 November 1980. On 18 November 1980, he enlisted in the Regular Army at nearly 19 years of age. 4. On 23 July 1981, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being drunk and disorderly in the troop billets. 5. On 14 April 1982, his commander recommended his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)), with his service characterized as under honorable conditions. a. His commander stated, "[The applicant] has an extremely poor attitude toward the Army and his military duties. Although he possesses the potential to be a good soldier, he has consistantly [sic] demostrated [sic] that he is totally lacking in motivation. In the year that [the applicant] has been in this battery, he has required constant supervision, and repeated counselling about his chronic petty infractions of rules and regulations. [The applicant] is a very immature person, and totally lacking in self-discipline. He sleeps in trucks in the motor pool when he is supposed to be performing maintenance, wanders away from his place of duty when the whim comes to him, and requires prodding by his supervisors to get out of bed, even for alerts, and make formations on time. His approach to his duties is, at best, lackadaisical. Recently, he has begun to claim to not know how to perform even basic tasks, such as weapons maintenance. When assigned to such a duty, he must be personally supervised, or he sits or goes to his room and goes to sleep. He has become a total liability, side-tracking his superiors from more productive activities, while able to exercise a negative influence on his peers through his intelligence. He has been transferred from a Fire Support Team to the Battery Fire Direction Center, to allow him to work under different circumstances and supervisors, in an attempt to give him a fresh start. This was to no avail." b. His commander further noted the applicant had received NJP for being drunk and disorderly, which was a frequent event for the applicant. 6. On 28 April 1982, he received NJP for being drunk on duty. His punishment was forfeiture of $151.00 for 1 month and assignment to a correctional confinement facility for 7 days. The punishment was suspended for 60 days. On or about 18 May 1982, the suspension was vacated and the punishment was ordered to be executed. 7. On 2 June 1982, the applicant acknowledged notification of his proposed separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31. He acknowledged he had been provided the opportunity to consult with counsel and he indicated he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if his service were characterized as under honorable conditions. He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. 8. In a statement, dated 10 June 1982, the applicant acknowledged his "history of mishaps and mistakes." He stated, in part, he had learned his lesson and wanted to soldier. 9. On or about 29 June 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge as recommended and directed characterization of his service as under honorable conditions. 10. On 12 July 1982, he was discharged as directed by the separation authority after completing 1 year, 7 months, and 25 days of net active service. On that date, he elected not to undergo a separation medical examination. 11. His records are void of documentation showing he incurred any medical conditions relating to his feet during his military service. 12. There is no evidence to show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 13. Army Regulation 635-200 provides policy and sets forth procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 5-31, then in effect, provided for the EDP. This program provided for the discharge of individuals 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. Such personnel were issued an honorable discharge or a general discharge under honorable conditions, as appropriate, except that a recommendation for a general discharge had to be initiated by the immediate commander and the individual had be given the opportunity 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 applicant was a substandard Soldier who demonstrated a poor attitude, a lack of motivation, and a lack of self-discipline. Because he could not or would not meet acceptable standards of conduct, his commander recommended his discharge under the EDP. 2. He states he was young, implying that his age during his service should be considered as a mitigating factor. There is no evidence indicating the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. Before he enlisted in the Regular Army, he completed BCT and AIT as a member of the USAR. The fact that he successfully completed this training shows he was capable of performing to the required standards regardless of his youth. Further, many other Soldiers enlisted at his age and successfully completed their service obligations. 3. He states he was "not given a chance to be corrected by other means." To the contrary, the records show he was repeatedly counseled, given a rehabilitative transfer, and assigned to correctional confinement. It appears that none of these rehabilitative measures had the desired effect of improving his performance and conduct. 4. The evidence of record shows his discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. In light of his willful failure to perform his duties to standard and the NJP he received, the general discharge he received is commensurate with his overall record of military service. 5. It is unclear why he mentions his foot conditions in his application or how these conditions are relevant to the characterization of his service. 6. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the 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 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) AR20130000483 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130000483 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1