BOARD DATE: 8 December 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004027 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, in effect: a. an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable and b. correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show he completed 3 years and 8 months of service. 2. The applicant states: a. His length of service is incorrect. He was discharged in July which makes his total length of service 3 years and 8 months, not 3 years and 4 months. b. His commanding officer informed him that his discharge would automatically be upgraded when he signed his paperwork. c. In 1986, wishing to be discharged under the Graham-Rudman-Hollings Act of 1985, he contacted a Senator and told him he was tired of being treated like a prisoner and asked to be included in the program. Because of his letter, there was an investigation and he was forced to retract everything stated in his letter. His squad leader and a sergeant swore he cursed at his squad leader, knowing that a dishonorable discharge would deny him college benefits. d. He knew a urinalysis was coming so he decided a general discharge was better than a dishonorable discharge which would deny him his benefits. e. He served for 3 years and 8 months, not 3 years and 4 months. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 * diplomas * letters of recommendation * certificate of employment 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 12 October 1982 for a period of 4 years. He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (infantryman). 3. Between September 1984 and May 1986, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him on four occasions for: * failing to obey a lawful order and failing to repair * using marijuana * failing to obey two lawful orders * using disrespectful language and using cocaine 4. In June 1986, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against him. 5. On 18 June 1986, he was notified of his pending separation for misconduct (commission of a serious offense) under the provisions of Army Regulation  635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c. The unit commander cited the applicant's four NJPs, two of which were for using marijuana and cocaine. 6. On 19 June 1986, he consulted with counsel. He acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he were issued a general discharge. He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf; however, his statement is not available for review. 7. On 23 June 1986, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge. 8. On 2 July 1986, he was discharged under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct – commission of a serious offense – under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. Item 12c (Net Active Service This Period) of his DD Form 214 shows he completed 3 years, 8 months, and 19 days of net active service this period. 9. Since his DD Form 214 shows he completed 3 years, 8 months, and 19 days of active service, this portion of his request will not be discussed further in this Record of Proceedings. 10. He provided numerous letters of recommendation/character reference from employers and co-workers who attest: * he was an asset to the educational institution * he was friendly and helpful * he was an enthusiastic instructor * he was an energetic and innovative teacher * he was helpful and polite 11. There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 12. The U.S. Army has never had a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the character of service or the reason for discharge, or both, was improper or inequitable. 13. The Graham-Rudman-Hollings Act of 1985 provided for automatic spending cuts ("cancellation of budgetary resources," called "sequestration") if the total discretionary appropriations in various categories exceed the budget spending thresholds in a fiscal year. The Pentagon announced the projected elimination of 25,000 troops from the Army and Air Force as a result of cost reductions mandated, in part, by the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. The troop reduction was part of Congress's effort to trim the federal budget deficit. 14. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense. The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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 contends he was informed by his commanding officer that his discharge would automatically be upgraded when he signed his paperwork; however, a discharge upgrade is not automatic. Each case is decided on its own merits. 2. The letters of recommendation/character reference submitted on behalf of the applicant failed to show his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded. 3. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. 4. Since a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for the authority and reason for his discharge, the fact that he was given a general discharge under honorable conditions indicates this commander carefully considered his entire record of service. 5. His record of service included four NJPs and a bar to reenlistment. As a result, his record of service was not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge then or now. 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) AR20150004027 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004027 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1