RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  15 January 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070012277 


	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. Joyce A. Wright

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Curtis L. Greenway 

Chairperson

Mr. Joe Schroeder

Member

Mr. Qawiy A. 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 (UD), characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) or honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his UD should be upgraded to a general or honorable discharge.  He was mentally ill and was diagnosed as Bipolar. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) in support of his request.

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 record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 August 1975.  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  On completion of his OSUT (one station unit training), he was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 71B, Clerk Typist.  He was promoted to pay grade E-3 on 23 May 1976.  

3.   Item 21, of the applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record-  Part II), shows that he was AWOL from 15 June 1976 to 6 July 1976.  Item 27 (Remarks), of his DD Form 214, shows an additional period of AWOL from 20 July 1976 to 31 August 1976. 

4.  All the documents containing the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not present in the available records.  However, the applicant's records contain a copy his DD Form 214 which shows that on 22 September 1976, he was discharged, in the pay grade of E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  
He was furnished an undesirable discharge, with his service characterized as UOTHC.  He had a total of 11 months and 15 days of creditable service and
66 days of lost time.

5.  The applicant’s medical records are unavailable for review. 

6.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.  

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could, at any time, after the charges had been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service,
in lieu of trial by court-martial.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.  

8.  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.

9.  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, 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.  All the facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are unavailable for review. 

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3.  It is apparent that his discharge was based on his incident of misconduct, which included being AWOL on two occasions consisting of a total of 66 days.  Therefore, there is an insufficient basis to support his request for an upgrade of his UD.

4.  There is no evidence in the applicant's records, and the applicant has provided none, to show that his discharge was unjust.  He also has not provided evidence sufficient to mitigate the character of his discharge.

5.  The applicant alleges, in effect, that he was mentally ill and was diagnosed as Bipolar.  However, there is no evidence, and he has provided none, to support his allegation.  

6.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his UD to honorable.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request and has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief, he now seeks.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__QS____  __CG____  ___JS__  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.




_____Curtis L. Greenway ____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070012277
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20080115
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19760922
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 636-200, CHAP 10
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.