IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 December 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120010956 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). 2. The applicant states that a fellow Soldier pointed a gun at his face which scared him so much he wanted to leave. He states he was only 18 years old and did not know how to handle the situation. He believes his discharge was unjust and extreme. 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 record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 December 1979. He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Upon completion of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C (Motor Transport Operator). 3. The applicant's record shows he earned the Parachutist Badge and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar. His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement. 4. The applicant's disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions between 12 May and 29 October 1980. 5. On 15 November 1980, the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He was dropped from the rolls (DFR) of the unit on 15 December 1980 and remained away for 103 days until returning to military control on 26 February 1981. 6. On 28 February 1981, the applicant again was AWOL from his unit at Fort Bragg. He was DFR on 3 August 1981 and remained away for 215 days until returning to military control on 30 September 1981. He was AWOL again on 3 October 1981 and remained away for 15 days until returning to military control on 19 October 1981. 7. On 20 October 1981, a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was prepared preferring a court-martial charge against the applicant for two specifications of violating Article 86 of the UCMJ by being AWOL from on or about 28 February 1981 to on or about 14 October 1981 and from on or about 5 to on or about 20 October 1981. 8. On 5 November 1981, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and after being advised of the basis of the contemplated trial by court-martial and the maximum permissible punishment under the UCMJ, of the possible effects of a discharge UOTHC, and of the rights and procedures available to him, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 9. The applicant acknowledged that by submitting the request for discharge he was admitting he was guilty of the charge against him or of a lesser-included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He also confirmed his understanding that if his request for discharge were approved, he could receive a discharge UOTHC. He further stated he understood that receipt of a discharge UOTHC could result in being deprived of many or all Army benefits, his possible ineligibility for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under State and Federal laws. 10. On 23 November 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed his discharge UOTHC. On 11 December 1981, the applicant was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he completed 1 year, 1 month, and 9 days of creditable active military service and accrued 333 days of lost time due to AWOL. 11. There is no indication in the record that the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 12. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. 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. c. 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's request to upgrade his discharge has been carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. 2. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. It also shows that after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service 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. 3. The evidence of record indicates the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in a punitive discharge. It further shows that in his request for discharge, he admitted guilt to an offense that authorized the imposition of a punitive discharge. Given the voluntary nature of his discharge request and the fact that he was fully informed of the implications of a discharge UOTHC by legal counsel, his argument that he did not understand what he agreed to is not sufficiently credible to support relief. 4. The discharge he received was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of his discharge and it does not support an upgrade to an honorable or a general discharge at this late date. Further, there is no error or injustice related to his separation processing that would support a change to the authority and reason for 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 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) AR20120010956 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120010956 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1