RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	    


	BOARD DATE:	  25 October 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070007924 


	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:


Ms. Linda D. Simmons

Chairperson

Mr. Scott W. Faught

Member

Mr. Roland S. Venable

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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he desires to expand his employment possibilities in order to feed and take care of his family and to provide his children with a better life.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation.

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 20 October 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12B1O (Combat Engineer).

3.  The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 to 22 February 1988. There is no available evidence of his receiving any punishment.

4.  On 13 October 1989, charges were preferred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for violation of Article 86, AWOL, during the period from on or about 29 August 1988 to on or about 9 October 1989.

5.  On 13 October 1989, 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. 

6.  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.   

7.  On 2 November 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  On 21 November 1989, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He had completed a total of 10 months and 28 days of creditable active military service and had accrued 428 days of time lost due to AWOL.

8.  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.

9.  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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

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

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.

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

3.  The applicant’s desire to have additional employment opportunities and to better provide for his family is understandable.  However, his desire is not sufficient to mitigate his misconduct.

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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ LDS__  ___RSV _  _SWF __  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.




__    Linda D. Simmons __
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070007924
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
20071025 
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE
19891121
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200 
DISCHARGE REASON
For the Good of the Service-In Lieu of CM
BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144.7000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.