RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  23 January 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060007075 


	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.


Mr. Carl W. S. Chun

Director

Mrs. Victoria A. Donaldson

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Kenneth L. Wright

Chairperson

Mr. Larry W. Racster

Member

Ms. Ernestine I. Fields

Member

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, 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 a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because his actions were as a result of being provoked on several occasions.

3.  The applicant did provided a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice which occurred on 9 August 1974, the date of his discharge.  The application submitted in this case is dated 12 May 2006.

2.  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 allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 October 1972.  Records show that he completed basic and advanced individual training and that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/pay grade E-2.  

4.  The applicant’s records do not show any significant acts of valor during his military service.

5.  The applicant's service records reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 4 separate occasions for driving through a red light, failing to obey the posted speed limit, failing to obey a lawful order, and failing to go to his assigned place of duty. 



6.  On 24 April 1974, charges were preferred against the applicant for being careless and reckless driving on or about 14 April 1974; failing to obey a lawful order by failing to pull to the right of the highway for an emergency vehicle on or about 14 April 1974; driving without a license on or about 14 April 1941; and for being disorderly in the military police station on or about 14 April 1974.  

7.  On 7 June 1974, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and 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.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

8.  In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that 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 (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.   

9.  On 22 July 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an undesirable discharge.  On 9 August 1974, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he completed a total of 1 year, 9 months, and 22 days of creditable active military service.

10.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trail by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.


12.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

13.  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 contends that his undesirable discharge should be upgrade to a general under honorable discharge because he was provoked.

2.  The applicant’s record shows he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  After consulting with defense counsel, he 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 his overall record of service.

3.  The applicant's record of service shows that the applicant was punished under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ on 4 separate occasions for driving through a red light, failing to obey the posted speed limit, failing to obey a lawful order, and failing to go his assigned place of duty.  His records further show that charges were preferred against him for being careless and reckless driving, failing to obey a lawful order by failing to pull to the right of the highway for an emergency vehicle, driving without a license, and being disorderly in station.  

4.  Based on his record of indiscipline, 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 discharge or an honorable discharge.


5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 9 August 1974; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 8 August 1977.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_KLW____  _LWR___  _EF____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




___Kenneth L. Wright__
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070123
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.