RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  3 January 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070011579 


	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. Mohammed R. Elhaj

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Ann M. Campbell

Chairperson

Mr. Dean A. Camerella

Member

Mr. Rodney E. Barber

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 an upgrade of his discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he was young and made a bad decision.  He also states that his discharge was unfair and forced.

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

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.  The applicant's records show that he was born on 22 June 1960 and enlisted in the Regular Army at the age of nearly 23 for a period of three years on 12 January 1983.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Food Service Specialist).  The highest grade he attained during his military service was private/E-2.

3.  The applicant’s records show that he was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16), and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar.  The applicant's records do not show any significant acts of valor during his military service.

4.  The applicant's records show that he was reported absent without leave (AWOL) during the periods 8 July 1983 through 12 July 1983.

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) on 14 July 1983 for being AWOL during the period on or about 8 July 1983 through on or about 12 July 1983.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $286 pay for two months and confinement at a correctional custody facility for 30 days.  The punishment of 30 days at a correctional custody facility was suspended except for 23 days until 5 February 1984  

6.  On 23 February 1984, Court-Martial charges were preferred against the applicant for one specification of stealing a .25 caliber pistol, of value of about $60.00, the property of another Soldier, on or about 26 January 1984.

7.  On 16 March 1984, 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 a discharge under other than honorable conditions if his request was approved, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by Court-Martial in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations).

8.  In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge.  He further acknowledged he understood that if the 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.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.  

9.  On 29 March 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate and be reduced to the grade of private/E-1.  On 6 April 1984, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) he was issued confirms he was discharged for the good of the service in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200.  This form further confirms the applicant completed a total of 1 year, 2 months, and 21 days of creditable active military service with 4 days of lost time due to AWOL.

10.  There is no indication in the applicant's records that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

11.  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 trail by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is 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.

13.  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 he is entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.

2.  The applicant was nearly 23 when he enlisted in the Regular Army and committed his offense.  There is no evidence in the available records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence showing that his acts of indiscipline were the result of his age.  Additionally, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service.  He made this request of his own free will and was not coerced by any person.

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. After consulting with legal counsel, he voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 in lieu of trial by a Court-Martial.  By doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to charges against him.  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.

4.  There is no evidence in the available records nor did the applicant provide documentation to substantiate an upgrade of his discharge.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant did not submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.  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.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to either a general or an honorable discharge. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__amc___  __dac___  __reb___  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.




							Ann M. Campbell
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070011579
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20080103
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(UOTHC)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19840406
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, Chap 10
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.