RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  28 June 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060017808 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Ms. Michael J. Fowler

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. John T. Meixell

Chairperson

Mr. William F. Crain

Member

Mr. Dean Camarella

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

2.  The applicant states, in effect, does it not seem funny that he would go absent without leave (AWOL) after serving more than 3 years of good service and also after being accepted for Officer Candidate School (OCS).  Nobody ever asked him what happened for him to go AWOL.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of this case.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which occurred on 27 April 1978.  The application submitted in this case is dated 8 January 2007.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 June 1973 for a 4 year term of service.  He successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).

4.   A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 3 April 1978, shows charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL for the period 27 December 1976 through 3 April 1978.

5.  A FDPCF Form 691 (Personnel Control Facility Interview Sheet), dated 5 April 1978, shows the applicant indicated in a personal interview the reason he went AWOL, "SM says he had asked several times to be discharged from the Army but nobody would listen.  Everyone thought he was a good soldier and couldn't 

believe he was sincere in his desires to get out.  He had some family problems at the time but the basic reason for the AWOL was that he was no longer interested in being a soldier."

6.  On 6 April 1978, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel).  

7.  The applicant indicated in his request that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions; that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration; and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge.  He waived the right to provide statements on his own behalf.

8.  On 18 April 1978, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He directed that the applicant be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  On 27 April 1978, the applicant was discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant had completed 3 years, 6 months, and 
24 days of creditable active service with 462 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

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, at any time after the charges have been preferred, 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. An under other than honorable discharge 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.  The applicant contends that nobody asked him what happened for him to go AWOL.  However, in his interview prior to his separation he indicated that he had some family problems at the time but the basic reason for the AWOL was that he was no longer interested in being a Soldier.  However, there is no evidence in the available record and the applicant has provided no evidence that shows he sought assistance from his chain of command, chaplain, or community support service to assist him with his problems prior to his AWOL.  In addition he could have made a statement with his discharge request and failed to take the opportunity to do so. Therefore, there is no basis for this argument.  

2.  Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time. 

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

4.  The applicant's records show that he had one instance of AWOL.  He had completed 3 years, 6 months, and 28 days of service on his Regular Army enlistment before his separation with a total of 462 lost days due to AWOL.  Based on these facts, the applicant’s service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel which are required for issuance of a general or honorable discharge.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 27 April 1978; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 
26 April 1981.  However, the applicant has provided evidence to support his request for a grant of clemency based upon his good post service conduct.  In view of the submitted evidence and since good post service conduct could only accrue subsequent to discharge from the Army, it is in the interest of justice to waive failure to timely file in this case.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JTM __  __WFC__  __DC___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




___ John T. Meixell ___
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060017808
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
28 JUNE 2007
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
UOTHCD
DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
MS. MITRANO
ISSUES         1.
144.0134.0000
2.
144.0000.0000
3.

4.

5.

6.