IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016738 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 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016738 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 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016738 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge (UOTHC) from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). 2. The applicant states the only issue he had was unauthorized absences that were the result of an injury to his left leg in 1979. He was told he could finish his enlistment if he made up the lost time, which he did. 3. The applicant provides: * 1979 DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * 1981 USAR Retention Board determination * 1985 USAR discharge orders * 2003 ABCMR letter * Certification of Military Service * 2015 Justice for Our Neighbors letter * 2015 National Personnel Records Center letter * membership certificate for The American Legion 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 USAR on 24 May 1974 and entered initial active duty for training (IADT) on 5 July 1979. He completed training, was awarded the military occupational specialty 36C (Wire System Installer), and was released from IADT on 25 October 1979. 3. His 25 October 1979 DD Form 214 shows: * 3 months and 21 days of active duty * 1 month and 11 days of prior inactive service * release from active duty training * character of service of honorable 4. A 29 April 1981 First U.S. Army memorandum shows the applicant had gone before an elimination board due to misconduct – unsatisfactory participation. The board voted to retain the applicant in the USAR in his current unit of assignment. 5. On 19 July 1985, the applicant's unit declared him an unsatisfactory participant and recommended he be discharged for misconduct – unsatisfactory participation. It was noted that he had previously been retained by an elimination board for the same reason, excessive unauthorized absences. 6. On 17 December 1985, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) Orders Number D-12-911759 directed the applicant be discharged from the USAR with service characterized as UOTHC. 7. In support of his request the applicant submitted a statement from the Justice for Our Neighbors indicating he was facing a deportation hearing. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 135-178 (Enlisted Administrative Separations) policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. It provides the following: a. An honorable discharge (HD) is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty. b. A general discharge (GD) is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge. c. A UOTHC discharge is issued when there is one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from conduct expected of a Soldier. d. Service may be characterized as UOTHC when discharge is for misconduct, fraudulent entry, or unsatisfactory participation. 2. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army. It establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214 and states a DD Form 214 will be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army. There is no similar document for separation from the USAR. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant served on active duty for only his period of IADT. A DD Form 214 is issued only for periods of active duty 2. He was declared to have been an unsatisfactory participant in 1981 but was allowed to remain in an active Reserve status at that time. 3. He was again declared to have been an unsatisfactory participant in 1985. At this time his unit recommended discharge and ARPERCEN approved the recommendation, directing he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and discharged with a UOTHC. There is no evidence of error or injustice in his discharge processing. The characterization of service he received was commensurate with the reason for his discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150016738 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150016738 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2