IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015711 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: 16 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015711 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: 16 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015711 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 his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. He also requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 24 September 1981 to show: a. primary military occupational specialty (MOS) 36C (wire systems installer operator) and b. his duty assignment with the honorary burial detail (known as the Army burial detail). 2. The applicant states: * his primary MOS was 36C, not 12B (combat engineer) * he was a member of the honorary burial detail from 1980 to 1982 * these items were never added to his records upon his discharge 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 enlisted in the Army National Guard on 25 April 1978 for a period of 6 years. He was ordered to active duty for training on 26 May 1978. He completed the wire system installer operator course and was awarded MOS 36C effective 24 August 1978. He was released from active duty for training on 28 August 1978. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) for the period ending 28 August 1978 shows his primary MOS as 36C. 3. Company B, 141st Engineer Battalion (Combat), Orders 2-1, dated 5 March 1979, awarded him MOS 12B and withdrew MOS 36C. 4. Item 6 (Military Occupational Specialties) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows he was awarded primary MOS 12B effective 5 March 1979. 5. On 23 January 1980, he was involuntarily ordered to active duty for a period of 20 months and 12 days due to unsatisfactory participation. 6. On 6 May 1980, nonjuducial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (three specifications). 7. Between July 1980 and December 1980, he was counseled for: * being late and missing formations on numerous occasions * talking in a disrespectful manner toward an noncommissioned officer * not being recommended for promotion * being highly intoxicated 8. Between 31 July 1980 and 29 April 1981, NJP was imposed against him on three occasions for: * failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty * willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer * violating a lawful general regulation (possessing two knives) 9. On 9 February 1981, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against him. 10. On 19 May 1981, his unit commander initiated action to separate him for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and an established pattern for shirking. 11. On 2 July 1981, the applicant consulted with counsel and he was advised of his rights. He requested consideration of his case by a board of officers. 12. On 25 August 1981, a board of officers convened. The board recommended his discharge from the service for misconduct with the issuance of a general discharge. 13. On 14 September 1981, the separation authority approved the recommendation that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b(1) for misconduct (due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities and an established pattern of shirking) and issuance of a general discharge. 14. On 24 September 1981, he was discharged under honorable conditions (general) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-33b(1), due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and an established pattern of shirking. He completed 1 year, 8 months, and 2 days of creditable active service. 15. Item 11 (Primary Specialty Number, Title and Years and Months in Specialty) of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 24 September 1981 shows the entry "12B1O, Combat Engineer, 2 yrs. [years] and 7 mos. [months]." 16. There is no evidence showing he was assigned or attached to the Army burial detail. 17. On 4 September 1992, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for a discharge upgrade. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. 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. 2. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, established policies and procedures for completion and distribution of the DD Form 214. a. The instructions for item 11 stated to enter the titles of all MOSs served for at least 1 year from the Enlisted Record Brief and include the number of years and months served for each MOS. For time determination, 16 days or more count as a month. Do not count basic training and advanced individual training. b. There is no provision to enter any duty assignment on the DD Form 214 other than the unit of assignment at separation. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's brief record of service on active duty included numerous counseling statements, a bar to reenlistment, and four NJPs. 2. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would have jeopardized his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons were therefore appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 3. His request to amend his DD Form 214 for the period ending 24 September 1981 to show primary MOS 36C was carefully considered. However, the evidence shows he was awarded primary MOS 36C on 24 August 1978 and this MOS was withdrawn on 5 March 1979 (a total of 6 months and 9 days). The governing regulation states to enter all MOSs served for at least 1 year. 4. His request to show his duty assignment with the Army burial detail was noted. However, there is no provision to show duty assignments on the DD Form 214 other than the duty assignment at separation. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015711 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015711 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2