BOARD DATE: 19 December 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160005361 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: 19 December 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160005361 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: 19 December 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160005361 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 under honorable conditions (general) discharge. 2. The applicant states Fort Stewart, GA, was a bad place when he was stationed there. He started having issues with his commander and his first sergeant, in particular, and did not quite realize the impact of prejudice in the South. He was getting it from his fellow Soldiers. It seemed petty at the beginning but escalated far beyond his imagination. He was ridiculed but he endured till he couldn't take it anymore. He had the option to face a court-martial or to separate early; he took the latter under honorable conditions. The time he served will never be forgotten; he is proud to be a veteran. If he had another chance he would do it all over again. 3. The applicant provides a self-authored statement and his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 22 March 1982. 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 3 June 1980. He completed his initial entry training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist). 3. DA Forms 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) within the applicant's record show he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) on the following occasions for the identified offenses: * 7 May 1981 – for violating Article 86 of the UCMJ, specifically for failing to repair on 8 April 1981 * 22 September 1981 – for violating Article 86 of the UCMJ, specifically for being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 19 September 1981 through on or about 22 September 1981 * 21 November 1981 – for violating Article 86 of the UCMJ, specifically for failing to repair on 16 November 1981 4. The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 14 December 1981. In recommending his bar, his commander noted that his poor discipline made him unsuitable for military service. 5. The applicant's commander notified him on 26 January 1982 that he was initiating separation actions against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)). His commander cited his demonstrated inability to adapt to military life as the reason for the discharge action. His commander also notified him that he was recommending discharge under honorable conditions. The applicant was informed: * he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life * he had the right to seek counsel * he had the right to submit a statement in his own behalf * he would not be permitted to apply for enlistment in the U.S. Army within 2 years from his discharge date 6. The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, under the EDP. The separation authority directed that he not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve and that he was furnished a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate). 7. The applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows he was confined by civilian authorities for alcohol related misconduct, from on or about 7 February 1982 through on or about 9 February 1982. It also shows he was reported as AWOL from on or about 16 March 1982 through on or about 17 March 1982. 8. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 22 March 1982. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, and his service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general). He completed 1 year, 9 months, and 12 days of active service. 9. There is no documentation in the applicant's available record and the applicant has not provided any documentation that substantiates his contention that he was subjected to a discriminatory environment or culture during his period of military service. 10. The applicant did not apply to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) 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 states 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. Chapter 5 provided for the EDP. The pertinent paragraph in chapter 5 provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential could be discharged under the EDP. It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary. Soldiers had to consent to separation under this program in order for commanders to separate them under the provisions of the EDP. Otherwise, a commander was required to separate Soldiers under other provisions of the regulation, which in most cases resulted in an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Individuals discharged under this provision of the regulation were issued either a general or honorable discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was discharged from the Regular Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31. His record shows he accepted NJP on three occasions and was barred from reenlisting; his chain of command considered these factors when deciding to separate him. In addition, his record shows he continued a pattern of misconduct after the separation authority approved his separation. 2. The applicant was notified of the reasons for his recommended separation and he signed a statement acknowledging he understood the prejudices associated with his discharge and voluntarily consented to the separation in accordance with the applicable regulation at the time. 3. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations then in effect with no indication of procedural errors that would have jeopardized his rights. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 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) AR20150018062 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160005361 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2