IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011792 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ____x___ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011792 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011792 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, an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states he was told at the time of his discharge that he could have his discharge changed to honorable after being out of the Army for a few years. He states that life happened and he forgot, but he is now requesting a change to the type of discharge he received. 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence. 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. On 3 February 1975, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed training as a helicopter repairman. 3. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three separate occasions between 11 November 1975 and 19 April 1976, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and for being drunk while on duty. 4. A DA Form 2496-1 (Disposition Form), dated 22 April 1976, shows the applicant was also counseled on five separate occasions between 2 March 1976 and 20 April 1976. However, those records of counseling are not filed in his official record. 5. On 22 April 1976, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37. His commander cited his demonstrated unsatisfactory performance, marginal conduct and extremely negative attitude toward military duties as a basis for his recommendation for discharge. 6. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification for discharge and that he understood the following conditions: a. If he was issued a general discharge under honorable conditions, he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. b. He was provided the opportunity to consult with an officer of the Judge Advocate General's Corps. c. If he voluntarily declined to accept this discharge, he may at a future time, if his conduct so warranted, be subjected to separation under other provisions of law and regulation. 7. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and on 3 May 1976, he directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 8. On 7 May 1976, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, for failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service. He completed 1 year, 3 months, and 5 days of net active service this period. He was discharged under honorable conditions. 9. A review of the available records does not show that the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) established the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. The regulation in effect at the time stated that the purpose of the separation document was to provide the individual with documentary evidence of their military service. It was important that information entered on the form be complete and accurate. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations), as then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 5-37 provided for separation under the Expeditious Discharge Program, for individuals who 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: (1) poor attitude; (2) lack of motivation; (3) lack of self-discipline; (4) liability to adapt socially or emotionally; or (5) failure to demonstrate promotion potential. Individuals discharged under this program may be awarded an Honorable or a General Discharge Certificate as deemed appropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7a of the current regulation states 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: 1. There is no evidence in the available record, nor has the applicant provided any evidence showing that he was told that his discharge would be upgraded after being out of the Army for a few years. At the time of his discharge, he acknowledged he understood that if he was issued a general discharge under honorable conditions, he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. 2. The applicant's service in the Army simply did not rise to the level of being considered as honorable. The type of discharge he received appropriately reflects his overall record of service. 3. The Army does not have, and has never had, any policy to automatically upgrade a discharge based on the passage of time. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011792 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011792 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2