IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 March 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009446 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 general discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states that when he asked to leave the Army he was going through a hardship due to three deaths in his family in six months. He is sorry for all the troubles he caused and wants to straighten out the mess and be at peace. 3. The applicant did not provide any additional supporting documentation. 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 24 May 1973. He held military occupational specialty 36K (Tactical Wire Operations Specialist). 3. He served in Germany from 18 October 1974 to 13 May 1976. The highest rank he attained was private first class/E-3. 4. On 4 April 1975, his immediate commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him because he had failed to maintain the standards required in attitude and duty performance. He had been counseled numerous times with negative results. The commander recommended a general discharge. 5. The applicant acknowledged the notification and voluntarily accepted discharge from the Army. He waived his right to make a statement on his own behalf. He acknowledged the possible effects of a general discharge under honorable conditions, and the procedures and rights available to him. 6. The separation authority approved the discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 7. The applicant was discharged on 13 August 1976 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37. He completed 1 year, 10 months, and 24 days of net active service this period. 8. 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. 9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-37 of the regulation, in effect at the time, provided for the discharge of enlisted personnel who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions: poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential. No individual would be discharged under this program unless the individual voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge. Individuals discharged under this regulation were issued either a general or honorable discharge. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 10. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. There is no available evidence to substantiate the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. 2. The applicant demonstrated he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of his inability to adapt to acceptable standards of behavior. Accordingly, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him. He did not raise any contentions at the time. 3. His separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 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) AR20120006183 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009446 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1