IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 November 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100014349 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, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that the discharge was too harsh. This was an isolated incident and he was treated differently than the other Soldiers in his unit. 3. The applicant did not provide any additional documentary 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’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 September 1989. Records show he completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76P (Materiel Control and Accounting Specialist). The highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/pay grade E-3. 3. On 6 January 1992, charges were preferred against the applicant for the following violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): being absent from his place of duty from on or about 17 July to on or about 14 December 1991, missing movement, striking an individual in the face with his fist, and impersonating a noncommissioned officer. 4. On 4 February 1992, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge and issuance of an Under other than Honorable Discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. 5. In his request for discharge, he indicated he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. 6. On 12 February 1992, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive an under other than honorable discharge. On 18 March 1992, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued for this period of service confirms he completed 2 years, 1 month, and 9 days of total active service. 7. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 8. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, which a member who has committed as offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, may at any time after the charges were preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. An under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally considered appropriate. 9. Army Regulation 635-200, 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 to acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. 10. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded because he was treated differently was carefully considered and it was determined that there is insufficient evidence to support his contention. 2. The applicant's record shows he was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. Therefore, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. All requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects the overall record of service. 3. Based on the record of indiscipline, which includes 4 months and 29 days of time lost due to being AWOL, and three other violations of the UCMJ, the applicant’s service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to either a general or honorable discharge. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ____X____ ___X_____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100013746 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100014349 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1