RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	


	BOARD DATE:	  8 May 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060016359


	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. Gerard W. Schwartz

Acting Director

Mr. Michael L. Engle

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Linda D. Simmons

Chairperson

Mr. Jerome L. Pionk

Member

Mr. Eddie L. Smoot

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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to general.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he went absent without leave (AWOL) because his marriage was failing.  He further states that he was stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany while his wife was in the United States.  He believes that his discharge under other than honorable conditions was too harsh. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his Report of Separation from Active Duty (DD Form 214). 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice which occurred on 19 May 1976, the date of his discharge.  The application submitted in this case is dated 14 November 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.  On 5 August 1975, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B1O (Light Weapons Infantryman).

4.  On 28 November 1976, the applicant was assigned for duty as a rifleman with Company A, 1st Battalion, 52nd Infantry Regiment, in the Federal Republic of Germany.

5.  On 24 March 1976, charges were preferred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for violation of Article 86, AWOL, from 16 February to 
22 March 1976 (37 days).



6.  On  25 March 1976, 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. 

7.  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 to 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.   

8.  On 15 April 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 19 May 1976, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He had completed a total of 8 months and 8 days of creditable active military service and accrued 37 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

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

10.  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.  At the time, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

11.  Under the UCMJ, the authorized punishment allowed for violation of Article 86, for AWOL of more than 30 days is a punitive discharge and confinement for 
1 year.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant 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.  The rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

2.  The type of discharge and reason therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  Notwithstanding the applicant's assertion that it would be unjust not to upgrade his discharge, there is no available evidence to show that he had any mitigating circumstances or that his AWOL was a reasonable solution to them.  

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 19 May 1976; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 
18 May 1979.  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

_LDS___  __JLP ___  __ELS __  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.




___Linda D. Simmons_____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060016359
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
20070508 
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19760519
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200. . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144.7000.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.