RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	 27 March 2007 
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012239 


	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.


	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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

2.  The applicant essentially states that he was mentally ill during his active duty service, and he made mistakes which resulted in the discharge that he received.

3.  The applicant provides a two-page self-authored statement and an article that he contends was written by him and published in the Birmingham Times in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which occurred on 30 August 2000, the date of his discharge from the Regular Army.  The application submitted in this case is dated 8 August 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 military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 
15 October 1997.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 77F (Petroleum Supply Specialist).  After serving a tour in Korea, he was reassigned to Fort Lewis, Washington, and was assigned to the 528th Quartermaster Company (Petroleum Supply).

4.  On 31 July 2000, the applicant was placed in pre-trial confinement.  On 
10 August 2000, charges were preferred against the applicant.  His offenses included six specifications of violating Article 86 (Absence Without Leave [AWOL]) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), seven specifications of violating Article 91 (Insubordinate Conduct Toward Warrant Officer, Noncommissioned Officer, or Petty Officer) of the of the UCMJ, one specification of violating Article 95 (Resistance, Flight, Breach of Arrest, or Escape) of the UCMJ, and one specification of violating Article 107 (Making a False Official Statement) of the UCMJ.  
5.  On 11 August 2000, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the Service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10 (Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial).  In his request, he understood that he may request discharge for the good of the Service because charges were preferred against him under the UCMJ which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He also acknowledged that he made this request for discharge of his own free will and was not subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person.  He also understood that by submitting his request for discharge, he acknowledged that he was guilty of at least one of the charges against him or of a lesser-included offense, which also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He also stated that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation, for he had no desire to perform further military service.  

6.  In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged that prior to completing his request, he was afforded the opportunity to consult with appointed counsel, who had fully advised him of the nature of his rights under the UCMJ, the elements of the offenses with which he was charged, any relevant lesser included offenses thereto, and the facts which must be established by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain a finding of guilty; the possible defenses which appear to be available at that time; and the maximum permissible punishment if found guilty, and of the legal effect and significance of his suspended discharge.  He also understood that although his legal counsel furnished him legal advice, the decision was his own.  

7.  The applicant also understood that if his request for discharge was accepted, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate.  He also acknowledged that he had been advised and understood the possible effects of an other than honorable discharge and that, as a result of the issuance of such a discharge, he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State Law.  He also understood that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.  





8.  On 23 August 2000, the proper approval authority approved the applicant’s discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, and directed that he be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  He also directed that the applicant would be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.

9.  On 30 August 2000, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) shows that he had 
33 days of lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement.

10.  On 23 May 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.

11.  The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because he was mentally ill during his active duty service.  However, there is no evidence in his military records, and the applicant did not provide any evidence which shows that he suffered from mental illness other than his own statement.  

12.  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 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.

13.  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.

14.  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.


15.  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.  The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 
3-year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB.  In complying with this decision, the ABCMR has adopted the broader policy of calculating the 3-year time limit from the date of exhaustion in any case where a lower level administrative remedy is utilized.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his discharge under other than honorable conditions should be upgraded.

2.  Although the applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded because he was mentally ill during his active duty service, there is no evidence in his military records, and the applicant failed to produce any evidence that conclusively shows that he had a mental illness.  

3.  It is clear that the applicant was charged with the commission of multiple offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  It is also clear that he voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  As he did not provide any evidence which shows that any requirements of law and regulation were not met, or that his rights were not fully protected throughout the separation process, regularity must be presumed in this case.  As a result, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

4.  The applicant's record of service shows that had 33 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  He voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Based on this 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, he is not entitled to either a general discharge or an honorable discharge.

5.  Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in this case when his case was last reviewed by the ADRB on 23 May 2001.  As a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice to this Board expired on 22 May 2004.  However, 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__  ___E.F._  __CD_ __  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
AR20060012239
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20070327
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE
20000830
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, CHAPTER 10 
DISCHARGE REASON
IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY CM – AWOL
BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
AR 15-185
ISSUES         1.
144.7100.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.