RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  1 November 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070008316 


	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. James E. Anderholm

Chairperson

Mr. Lester Echols

Member

Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann

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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.  The applicant requests to personally appear before the Board.

2.  The applicant states that his undesirable discharge was supposed to have been upgraded when he enlisted in the United States Navy.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), and a medical board report, 

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 6 March 1970, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 62B2O (Engineer Equipment Repairman).  He was subsequently assigned for duty with the United States Army, Europe.

3.  On 8 March 1971, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 6 years, with the option of assignment to the Republic of Vietnam.

4.  On 20 July 1971, the applicant was assigned for duty as a motor transport operator with the 2nd Transportation Company, in the Republic of Vietnam.

5.  On 16 November 1971, the applicant was reassigned for duty as a light vehicle driver with the 597th Transportation Company.

6.  On 23 February 1972, the applicant was reassigned for duty as a light vehicle driver with the 359th Transportation Company.  Records show that he never reported for this assignment.  He was reported as being absent without leave (AWOL).  He was subsequently dropped from the rolls of the Army.

7.  The discharge packet is missing from his military records.  However, his Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214) shows that he was administratively discharged on 1 March 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service.  His service was characterized as under conditions other than honorable and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He had completed 2 years, 1 month and 16 days of creditable active duty and had 316 days of lost time due to AWOL.

8.  On 15 July 1981, the applicant enlisted in the United States Navy.  On 
4 March 1983, he was discharged under honorable conditions for unsuitability due to a personality disorder. 

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

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requested a personal appearance before the Board; however, since there is sufficient evidence of record to fully consider this case, a formal hearing is not warranted.  

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

3.  There is no policy, regulation, directive or law that provides for the automatic upgrade of a less than honorable discharge from military service.  There is no evidence of record showing that any agreement or action was taken to provide the applicant an upgrade to his discharge from the United States Army based upon his service in the United States Navy.


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 above, the applicant's request should be denied.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_ JEA ___  __LE____  __JCR  _  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




__   James E. Anderholm____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070008316
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
20071101
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19730301
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200. . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.