BOARD DATE: 12 February 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140010488 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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). 2. The applicant states he was drafted, had a job at home, and knew nothing about the Army or war. He did an excellent job while in the Army, receiving the National Defense Service Medal and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge). 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 inducted on 22 May 1969, completed basic training, but failed to complete advanced individual training. 3. The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 7 July 1969. The available record does not show what punishment he received for this absence. 4. On 6 February 1970, a special court-martial found the applicant guilty of AWOL from 27 July 1969 through 21 January 1970. His sentence included confinement from 27 January 1970 through 14 April 1970. 5. The applicant was placed in pretrial confinement on 1 December 1970. 6. On 21 December 1970, a special court-martial found the applicant guilty of AWOL from 26 April 1970 through 27 November 1970. His sentence included confinement for four months. 7. On 8 January 1971, the applicant's command initiated separation action for unfitness based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. The applicant acknowledged this action and waived all of his rights. 8. The separation authority approved the separation and directed the applicant receive a UD. 9. On 23 February 1971, the applicant was discharged under Army Regulation 635-212 for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. He had 2 months and 23 days of creditable service with 558 days of lost time. 10. There is no indication the applicant applied for review of his discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statutory limit. 11. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness. A UD was normally considered appropriate. 12. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It provides the following: a. an HD is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty. b. a general discharge (GD) is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge. c. at the time of the applicant's service, a discharge under conditions other than honorable was issued when there was one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from conduct expected of a Soldier. A UD certificate was issued for a discharge under conditions other than honorable characterization of service. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant had almost 7 times more lost time than creditable service. The applicant's extremely limited creditable service cannot be described as "excellent" service. The applicant's service does not meet satisfactory standards warranting a GD much less the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty warranting an HD. 2. 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. 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) AR20140010488 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140010488 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1