IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 January 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140009849 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 to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 2. The applicant states he: a. was young and unwise at the time, but feels that he has served his time with a bad conduct discharge (i.e., under other than honorable conditions discharge). b. would like to have regular citizen freedoms such as the ability to purchase a gun in accordance with his 2nd amendment rights, but he is prohibited because of his current discharge. c. has been a productive member of society since his discharge and regrets his past mistakes. 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 was born on 10 June 1957 and enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 October 1975 at the age of 18 years. 3. His record contains his disciplinary history which shows: a. his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 20 February to 2 March 1976; and b. a Charge Sheet, dated 11 June 1976, that shows court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification of: (1) being AWOL from 9 March to 27 May 1976 and (2) breaking restriction on 9 March 1976. 4. On 29 July 1976, 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 of the procedures and rights that were available to him. Following counseling, the applicant submitted a voluntary written request for 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. 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions. He acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. He submitted a statement, dated 2 August 1976, on his own behalf wherein he indicated that the Army was not right for him, if he returned to duty he did not think he would be a good Soldier, and he understood that he would lose all benefits and it would be hard to get a job, but it would be worth it even if it meant an undesirable discharge. 5. The applicant's unit commander subsequently recommended approval with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 6. On 19 August 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He also directed the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 7. On 2 September 1976, the applicant was discharged accordingly. He completed 7 months and 5 days of total creditable active service with 111 days of time lost. 8. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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, the 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. A discharge under other than honorable conditions would normally be given to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. b. 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 available evidence shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid a trial by court-martial after completing less than 8 months of his service. He acknowledged he understood he could be ineligible for many or all Army benefits and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. There is no indication his request was made under coercion or duress. 2. His service records show he had NJP, one court-martial charge, and 111 days of lost time. 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. His record shows he was 18 years of age at the time of his offenses. However, there is no evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 4. In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's an honorable or a general 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) AR20140009849 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140009849 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1