RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  21 June 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070001448 


	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. Jeanne Marie Rowan

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Sherri V. Ward

Chairperson

Mr. Richard T. Dunbar

Member

Mr. David W. Tucker

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 be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his service in the Republic of Vietnam was untarnished and it has been thirty years since his discharge. 

3.  The applicant did not provide any additional documentary evidence in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice which occurred on 9 December 1971, the date of his discharge.  The application submitted in this case is dated 21 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's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 July 1968.  Records show that he completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded the military occupational specialty 63B (Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic).  The highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist four/pay grade E-4.

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 of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) one three occasions for: on 24 September for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 22 September 1968 to on or about 24 September 1968; on 30 September 1970, for being AWOL on 28 September 1970; on 24 November 1970, and for being AWOL from on or about 2 November 1970 through on or about 23 November 1970.

6.  On 6 October 1971, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL on or about 2 June 1971 to on or about 30 September 1971. 

7.  On 5 November 1971, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by special 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.  On 15 November 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive a discharge characterization of under honorable conditions.  On 9 December 1971, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) the applicant was issued at the time of his discharge confirms he was discharged and issued a General Discharge Certificate, completed a total of 2 years, 7 months, and 6 days of creditable active military service; and that he accrued 204 days of time lost due to AWOL.

9.  In order to request a discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation), the applicant must indicate that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge(s) against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He must further acknowledge 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.  

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, which 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, a general or undesirable discharge were 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because his service within the Republic of Vietnam was untarnished.

2.  The applicant’s record shows he was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Therefore, it is presumed in this case that the applicant 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 he accrued 204 days of lost time due to AWOL.  

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.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 9 December 1971; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 8 December 1974.  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

_SVW ___ _RTD___  _DWT___  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.




_Sherri V. Ward__
          CHAIRPERSON



INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
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.