RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  07 February 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070013232 


	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. Dean L. Turnbull

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. William D. Powers

Chairperson

Ms. Rose M. Lys

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 be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was given a military occupational specialty (MOS) that he wasn't trained to do.  He only had a 7th grade education and his lack of education prevented him from doing his job.  His first tour of duty between 1963 and 1965 was honorable.  His ability to serve was impaired when he started to work in an MOS he wasn't trained for.  He was trained to be a Supply Clerk but before leaving the Republic of Vietnam he was promoted to specialist five pay grade E-5 in MOS 62B3O (Senior Engineer Equipment Repairman).  He left the Republic of Vietnam and was reassigned as a mechanic in an Artillery unit at Fort Knox, Kentucky.  While at Fort Knox, Kentucky he was unable to do his job properly and he was embarrassed, that is why he was absent without leave (AWOL).

3.  The applicant provides a personal statement and five character statements.

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 military service record shows that he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 20 February 1963.  He completed the necessary training and was awarded the specialty number and title 550.00 (Longshoreman). He was honorably released from active duty and was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training) St. Louis, Missouri on 2 March 1965.  He had completed 2 years and 8 days of active service and accrued  
5 days time lost.  His highest rank held during this period of service was private/pay grade E-2.
3.  The applicant enlisted into the Regular Army on 24 April 1968 for 3 years.  On 24 January 1970, the applicant was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He had served 1 year and 9 months of active service.

4.  A DA Form 2166 (Enlisted Efficiency Report) dated 3 December 1969 shows that the applicant's duty MOS was 62B2O and that he received excellent ratings for his duty performance from his chain of command.  Subsequently, he was recommended for promotion to pay grade E-5 and was later promoted to specialist five/pay grade E-5.

5.  He then reenlisted in the Regular Army on 25 January 1970 for 6 years.

6.  On 28 August 1970, the applicant pled guilty to a special court-martial to one specification of AWOL for the period 19 May 1970 to 25 July 1970.

7.  The applicant's discharge packet was not included in his records.  However, his DD Form 214 shows that he received an undesirable discharge on  
17 February 1971, with the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code 246, which is assigned to Soldiers who are discharged for the good of the service.  He had completed a total of 6 months and 22 days of Net Service This Period and accrued 185 days of time lost.

8.  The character statements that the applicant submitted state that the applicant is a very good person, a family man and an honorable man with integrity that loves his country.  He is a very dependable, honest, and a well-balanced person with many positive influences on everyone around him.  He is a considerate and supportive individual.

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

10.  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 trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

11.  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.

12.  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 his undesirable discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant received an honorable discharge for his first and second enlistment during the period from 20 February 1963 to 2 March 1965 and from 
24 April 1968 to 24 January 1970.  However, during his last period of enlistment during the period from 25 January 1970 to 17 February 1971, evidence shows the applicant had 185 days of time lost.  As such, an undesirable discharge was equitable and proper.

3.  Although the applicant stated that he was not properly trained in MOS 62B, the evidence shows that he received excellent ratings from his chain of command and subsequently was recommended for promotion to pay grade E-5 for his duty performance in MOS 62B.

4.  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.  Therefore, he is not entitled to a general or an honorable discharge.

5.  The character statements that the applicant submitted were noted.  However, they do not outweigh the applicant's misconduct.



6.  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 this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__WDP__  __RML__  __QAS__  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.




____William D. Powers_____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20080207
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.