BOARD DATE: 7 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004680 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: 7 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004680 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: 7 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004680 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 an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states he had no problems adapting to military life, but his immaturity caused him to have authority issues. He believes the Board should consider his application to remove the hindrance to viable employment, home ownership, access to credit, certain Department of Veterans Affairs benefits, education benefits, and membership in services organizations. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty). 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 born on 22 February 1955. 3. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 January 1974 for a period of 3 years. 4. Between October 1974 and May 1976, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him on four occasions as follows: * 16 October 1974 – for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty for approximately 3 1/2 hours * 31 October 1974 – for possessing marijuana and failing to obey two lawful orders * 19 February 1976 – for wrongfully appropriating a 1/4-ton truck * 7 May 1976 – for disobeying a lawful order 4. On 7 May 1976, he was notified of his pending separation for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph  5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program). The unit commander cited the following reasons for his proposed action: * his four NJPs * he failed to conduct himself in a military manner, even after numerous counseling statements by his chain of command 5. On 7 May 1976, he acknowledged notification of his proposed discharge, voluntarily consented to separation, and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf. He also acknowledged he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he were issued a general discharge and he had been provided an opportunity to consult with counsel. 6. On 11 May 1976, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 7. He was discharged on 17 May 1976 under the Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37. He completed 2 years, 4 months, and 7 days of total active service. His service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general). 8. There is no evidence showing he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade 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. 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. b. Paragraph 5-37, in effect at the time, provided for the discharge of enlisted personnel who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of active duty service and who demonstrated 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: poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential. No individual would be discharged under this program unless the individual voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge. Individuals discharged under this provision of the regulation were issued an honorable or a general discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends his immaturity caused him to have authority issues. He was over 18 years old when he enlisted and over 21 years old at the time of his discharge. There is no evidence indicating he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military terms of service. 2. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights. He voluntarily consented to the discharge. The separation authority determined his service record, which included NJP on four occasions, did not rise to the level required for an honorable 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) AR20160004680 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160004680 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2