RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  20 September 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070006962 


	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

Mr. Michael L. Engle

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann

Chairperson

Mr. Dean A. Camarella

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, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.   

2.  The applicant states that he joined the United States Army in the early 1970’s and got started off on the wrong foot.  After mistakes, he decided to buckle down and do his hitch.  He was sent to the Federal Republic of Germany.  He had great difficulty adjusting and his drinking increased to a point that made it hard to do his duty to the best of his ability.  He does not deny his mistakes.  He takes full responsibility for his actions.  However, in hindsight, he believes the chain of events that lead to his discharge was caused by his alcoholism.  He accepted an undesirable discharge and was sent back to the United States.  He got married soon afterward, had two children and then was divorced.  That was his turning point.  He could see what was wrong, and that he was an alcoholic.  He sought treatment and made several attempts to stay sober.  He finally struck success and has been alcohol and drug free for 25 years.  He further states that his greatest regret is his undesirable discharge.  He is deeply ashamed and does not want to die with this on his record. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214), a portion of his request for discharge for the good of the service, civilian medical treatment record, newspaper article, and eighteen letters of support from family, friends, and the county sheriff’s department, telling of the applicant’s good post service citizenship, long record of sobriety, honesty, hard work, generosity, and reliability. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.


2.  On 11 December 1970, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11E1O (Armor Crewman).

3.  On 25 January 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period from 3 to 22 January 1971.  The punishment included a forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for 2 months, and restriction for 30 days.

4.  On 25 May 1971, the applicant was reassigned for duty as an armor crewman with the 2nd Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment, in the Federal Republic of Germany.

5.  On 2 August 1971, the applicant accepted NJP for willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer and for breaking restriction.  The punishment included reduction to private, pay grade E1, (suspended), a forfeiture of $17.00 pay per month for 1 month, and 7 days of extra duty.

6.  On 17 November 1971, charges were preferred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for violation of Article 86, absence without leave on or about 
16 November 1971; and for violation of Article 91 for being disrespectful in language towards his superior noncommissioned officer and for willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer.

7.   On 11 January 1972, 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. 

8.  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.   

9.  On 14 January 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 28 January 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He had completed a total of 11 months and 29 days of creditable active military service and had accrued 19 days of time lost due to AWOL.

10.  On 23 November 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.

11.  Under the UCMJ, the maximum punishment allowed for the applicant’s violations of Article 91, is a punitive discharge and confinement for 
3 years.

12.  The applicant has provided eighteen letters of support. 

	a.  On 14 April 2007, his sister wrote that they grew up during some very hard times.  Their alcoholic father had left them and their mother had to care for all six children.  The applicant entered the military but because of his drinking his performance of duty went downhill resulting in an undesirable discharge.  The applicant joined Alcoholics Anonymous and has been sober.  He is an upstanding patriotic member of the community who is a hardworking, honest and generous family man.

	b.  On 9 April 2007, a sheriff in the applicant's county wrote a letter of support stating that he has known the applicant for more than 9 years and finds him to be a model citizen who goes above and beyond and has been a friend to law enforcement.

	c.  On 25 April 2007, the owner and operator of a local business wrote a letter of support stating that he had grown up with the applicant in a small fishing village on the coast of Maine.  They both discovered alcohol at a young age and by the time the applicant entered the military, he was well on his way to being an alcoholic.  After several years of hard drinking, the applicant decided to clean up his life and he joined Alcoholics Anonymous.  He has been sober for more than 20 years.  He has been married for over 20 years and a good father to his two children.  He is a business owner and well respected by the other merchants and business in town.  The applicant's word is as good as gold.  He is a talented musician.  The writer opined that the applicant would be a great asset to any community and he would entrust him with his life without hesitation. 

	d.  The remaining balance of these letters contain similar comments and recommendations for favorable action with regard to this case.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

2.  The applicant’s good post-service conduct is noted.  However, it does not sufficiently mitigate his repeated acts of indiscipline during his military service.

3.  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.

4.  Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in this case when his case was last reviewed by the ADRB on 23 November 1975.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__QAS __  _DAC___  __JCR___  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.




_     Jeffrey C. Redmann_____
          CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070006962
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
20070920 
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
 
DATE OF DISCHARGE
 
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
  . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144.7000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.