RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  22 February 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060010933 


	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

Ms. Wanda L. Waller

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Mark Manning

Chairperson

Mr. John Meixell

Member

Mr. Qawiy Sabree

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 that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he was a young teenager fresh out of high school and did not realize how the mistakes he made then would affect him now.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which occurred on 2 November 1990.  The application submitted in this case is dated 28 July 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 was born on 22 November 1969.  He enlisted on 17 November 1987 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed One Station Unit Training in military occupational specialty 11B (infantryman).  

4.  The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 19 June 1990, was apprehended by civil authorities, and returned to military control on 31 August 1990.  On 21 September 1990, charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL period.    

5.  On 21 September 1990, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he understood he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished an other than honorable discharge; that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration; that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits; and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an other than honorable discharge.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf. 

6.  On 3 October 1990, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

7.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 2 November 1990 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial.  He had served 2 years, 9 months, and 4 days of total active service with 73 days of lost time due to AWOL.  

8.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for 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.  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, 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

10.  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.  

11.  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.  Although the applicant contends that he was a young teenager fresh out of high school, evidence of record shows that he was almost 18 years old when he enlisted and that he was almost 21 years old when he went AWOL.  Therefore, age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor.  

2.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he failed to do so.  

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  Since the applicant had a 73-day AWOL offense that led to referral of a court-martial charge, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable or a general discharge.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice now under consideration on 2 November 1990; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 1 November 1993.  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

MM_____  __JM____  _QS____  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.


__Mark Manning________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060010933
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20070222
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19901102
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200 Chapter 10
DISCHARGE REASON
For the good of the service
BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.