IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 December 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140007652 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 a fully honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states his general discharge should be upgraded because he was told it could be upgraded after 15 years and he was not counseled at the time of his discharge regarding such an upgrade. 3. The applicant provides no additional documents with his application. 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 Illinois Army National Guard (ILARNG) on 25 March 1981 for a period of 6 years. He completed his training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and was returned to his ILARNG unit. 3. The facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge are not present in the available records. However, his records do contain a National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) which shows he was discharged under honorable conditions on 24 March 1993, under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200 due to unsatisfactory participation. He had served 12 years of service. 4. A review of his official records shows that notification of unexcused absences were dispatched by certified mail, the applicant was reduced for inefficiency, and he was on the over-weight program. 5. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 6. National Guard Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of ARNG personnel. It provides for the separation of personnel because of unsatisfactory participation and provides that the service of a Soldier separated under this chapter will be characterized as honorable or general, under honorable conditions as warranted by his or her military record. 7. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), 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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no violations or procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. Accordingly, it is also presumed that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case. 2. The applicant's contentions have been considered. However, he has provided no evidence to show that his discharge was improper or unjust. It appears that his service simply does not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge. Additionally, the Board does not upgraded discharges simply based on the passage of time. 3. The applicant had a responsibility to keep his unit notified and to provide the necessary documentation to support his absences. He also had a responsibility to ensure that his absences were excused and he has not provided evidence to show that such was the case. 4. In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary 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) AR20140007652 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140007652 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1