BOARD DATE: 8 June 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000899 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 BOARD DATE: 8 June 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000899 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. BOARD DATE: 8 June 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000899 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 under honorable conditions to honorable and correction of his narrative reason for separation. 2. The applicant states "unsatisfactory performance" was not the reason for his separation. He took a voluntary early discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, because President Reagan wanted to downsize the military. He was supposed to receive a fully honorable discharge. He did not discover this issue until veterans began receiving tax breaks. Now, more than ever, veterans are being recognized. He wants "unsatisfactory performance" removed from his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). 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 Regular Army on 2 February 1982. He was trained as a Chaparral system mechanic. 3. On 15 August 1983, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. 4. His records contain a DA Form 4126 (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate), dated 9 January 1984, referring to the NJP discussed above. The commander stated the applicant showed no potential for future service. His lateness and poor duty performance were below the standards of the unit and the U.S. Army. The commander also cited the following counseling statements: * 28 April 1983 – attitude * 30 June 1983 – duty performance * 21 July 1983 – failure to repair * 26 July 1983 – failure to repair * 29 July 1983 – negative performance * 3 August 1983 – notification of elimination 5. On 9 January 1984, the applicant indicated he had been furnished a copy of the DA Form 4126 discussed above. He also indicated he did not desire to submit a statement in his own behalf. 6. On 9 January 1984, the applicant received NJP for unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon, to wit, a knife with blade over 3 inches long. 7. On 13 January 1984, he underwent a mental status evaluation wherein his behavior was described as normal. He was fully alert and oriented and displayed a flat mood. His thinking was clear, his thought content was normal, and his memory was good. He was mentally responsible. He was capable of participating in the separation process. 8. On 16 January 1984, the battalion commander approved the bar to reenlistment. The approval action informed the applicant that the bar would be reviewed in 6 months. If he perceived he would be unable to overcome the bar, he could apply for an immediate discharge. 9. On 6 February 1984, the applicant's commander initiated action to separate him from the service for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. He cited the applicant's poor duty performance, inability to adapt to the military way of life, and lack of self-discipline. 10. On 10 February 1984, the applicant consulted with counsel and elected to make a statement in his own behalf. No such statement is currently available in his military records. 11. On 17 February 1984, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation, directing the applicant's discharge from the service and issuance of a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate). 12. The applicant was discharged accordingly on 28 February 1984. He completed 2 years and 27 days of creditable active duty service. 13. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provides that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. 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. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected to show his characterization of service as fully honorable because he accepted a voluntary early discharge and he now wants to receive veterans' benefits. 2. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. 3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case. 4. Based on his poor duty performance, he did not meet the acceptable standards for Army personnel. 5. The applicant has not provided any evidence or a sufficiently mitigating argument to warrant upgrade of his discharge. He has not shown the reason for his discharge to be in error or unjust. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000899 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000899 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2