IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 July 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120022179 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 undesirable discharge. 2. The applicant states he damaged his hearing while in the service and he would like to receive some medical benefits. 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 14 December 1972. 3. His record shows he accepted nonjudicial punishment for: a. failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed, 7 June 1973; and b. being absent without leave (AWOL) during the periods 14 September to 11 October 1973 and 13 to 18 March 1974. 4. His record contains a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 7 May 1974, which shows he was charged with one specification of being AWOL during the period 17 April to 7 May 1974. 5. The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing are not available for review. However, the available evidence includes a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that contains the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge. The DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 12 November 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial, with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he had a total of 175 days of lost time. 6. On 15 April 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 7. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred,. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. 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 Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. An undesirable discharge certificate would normally be furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service. 8. 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 of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. 9. 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Although the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing, it does contain a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the authority, reason, and the characterization of his service. 2. His service record shows he received three Articles 15 and he was AWOL 175 days. As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. 3. The ABCMR does not upgrade discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for benefits. Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a discharge upgrade. 4. The available evidence is insufficient for granting the applicant's request. 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) AR20120022179 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120022179 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1