BOARD DATE: 29 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002339 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: 29 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002339 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: 29 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002339 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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his mailing address in Houston, Texas. He also requests his under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states his DD Form 214 needs to be updated to reflect an honorable discharge. 3. The applicant provides no additional documents. 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 1 April 1980. 3. On 4 February 1981, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. 4. On 4 February 1981, the applicant completed a Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination) and Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History) showing his home address as Tumwater, Washington. 5. On 9 February 1981, the applicant's unit commander notified him of his proposed discharge action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)). The unit commander cited the basis for the proposed action as the applicant’s continued inability to perform basic personal and professional functions, including his inability to budget money and maintain housing for his family, repeated failure to repair violations, uniform deficiencies and an inability to work constructively. The commander stated the applicant absolutely had no promotion potential. 6. On 10 February 1981, the applicant was advised of his rights. He acknowledged notification of the separation action, he declined to consult with legal counsel, and did not submit statements in his own behalf. He acknowledged that he understood if he were issued a general discharge he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. He also acknowledged he understood there was no automatic upgrading or review by any government agency of a characterization of service. He was advised he would have to apply to the Army Discharge Review Board or the ABCMR. 7. On 10 February 1981, the applicant's company commander initiated separation action and recommended the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate. 8. On 10 February 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 9. On 23 February 1981, the Army discharged him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 (EDP) due to failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention. His characterization of service is shown as under honorable conditions (general). He completed 10 months and 23 days of active military service. He signed his DD Form 214 with item 19 (Mailing Address After Separation) showing Camdenton, Missouri. 9. His service record does not contain documents reflecting his mailing address as Houston, Texas. 10. There is no evidence showing he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the Army. a. Paragraph 5-31 in effect at the time governed the EDP. The program was for enlisted personnel who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service. This program provided that members who had 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, may be separated when they failed to respond to counseling. * Poor attitude * Lack of motivation * Lack of self-discipline * Inability to adapt socially or emotionally * Failure to demonstrate promotion potential b. Under this regulation, it provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary. No member would be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge. Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate was predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member's current enlistment with due consideration for the member's age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude. c. Chapter 3 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. 2. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) in effect at the time prescribed policy and procedural guidance relating to preparation of discharge documents. The instructions for preparing item 19 of the DD Form 214 states the Soldier was responsible for providing their mailing address and county of residence at time of separation. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence of record shows the applicant demonstrated that he could not or would not meet acceptable conduct standards required of enlisted personnel because of his failure to adjust, inability to manager his personal finances including maintaining housing for his family, repeated failure to repair violations, uniform deficiencies and an inability to work constructively. It appears he failed to respond to counseling for his commander said he had no promotion potential. Accordingly, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him. 2. The applicant's service record shows he received one Article 15 for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. 3. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. The evidence of record shows he acknowledged receipt of the notification of his proposed discharge from the Army and he voluntarily consented to this discharge. He also acknowledged he had been provided the opportunity to consult with counsel. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 4. The applicant's chain of command determined his overall military service did not meet the standards for an honorable discharge as defined in Army Regulation 635-200 and determined his service would be characterized as under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows his mailing address after separation as Camdenton, Missouri. Per the governing regulation, the mailing address and county of residence are furnished by the individual at time of separation. There is no evidence indicating the mailing address on the DD Form 214 reflects anything other than what the applicant provided at the 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) AR20160002339 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002339 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2