IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011923 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: 21 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011923 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: 21 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011923 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 upgrade of his 6 December 1976 general discharge. 2. The applicant states he has been out of the military for more than 38 years and served as a Memphis Police Officer for 33 years. He is a productive citizen and acknowledges making youthful mistakes but truly believes that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable. He request that the Board consider his service in Vietnam. 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. The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 12 September 1969. He served as a gunner in Vietnam from 17 February to 31 December 1970, with the 502nd Infantry. 3. He completed two honorable periods of service prior to reenlisting on 11 October 1974. 4. His record shows he was barred from reenlistment on 13 January 1976 for indebtedness, non-support of dependents, and a dishonored check. 5. On 11 November 1976, the applicant's commander notified him of his intent to initiate action to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsuitability. Specifically, the commander cited severe debt problems, failure to improve his financial management, unsatisfactory handling of his personal affairs, inability to manage equipment or personnel, lack of potential to become a noncommissioned officer after 7 years in the service, and little desire to improve himself 6. On 13 November 1976, the applicant consulted with counsel, who advised him of the basis for his contemplated separation and its effects, the rights available to him, and the effect of a waiver of his rights. 7. After consulting with counsel, he elected not to submit statements in his own behalf and he indicated he desired to seek legal counsel concerning the separation action. He acknowledged he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him. 8. On 23 November 1976, the separation authority directed his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13-5b, and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate. On 6 December 1976, he was discharged accordingly. 9. His record does not contain any awards for valor. 10. On 17 March 1992, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request to upgrade his discharge. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 13, in effect at the time, contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals for unfitness. It provided that individuals would be discharged by reason of unfitness for an established pattern of shirking. This regulation prescribed that an undesirable discharge was normally issued unless the particular circumstances warranted an honorable or a general discharge. b. Paragraph 3-7a 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. c. Paragraph 3-7b states that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge. 2. His Vietnam service is noted; however, his record reveals a history of misconduct that includes severe debt problems, personal problems, and lack of potential for promotion. Accordingly, his chain of command initiated separation action against him. 3. The evidence of record shows his separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and there is no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service. The reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011923 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011923 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2