RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  22 April 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080001930 


	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.




Director



Analyst
      The following members, a quorum, were present:




Chairperson



Member



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 discharge be upgraded to honorable or general under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states that time changed his life.  He wishes to be granted a new discharge for the sake of himself and his children.  He is now and always was proud to serve his country.

3.  The applicant provides eight, undated, character references.

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 was inducted into the Army on 4 February 1971.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  He was honorably discharged on 19 December 1972 for the purpose of enlisting in the Regular Army on 20 December 1972.

3.  On 20 March 1973, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for absenting himself from his place of duty.

4.  On 30 May 1973, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for wrongfully exposing himself in an indecent manner to public view (urinating in public).

5.  On 1 August 1973, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for disobeying a lawful order (driving after his installation driving privileges were suspended).

6.  On 3 December 1973, a bar to reenlistment on the applicant was approved.  His company commander had cited as the reasons for requesting the bar to reenlistment as, in addition to his Article 15s, for an overdue bill from Army Emergency Relief, for sleeping on duty, and for the applicant being counseled on numerous occasions.

7.  The applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) on or about 8 July 1974. On 6 August 1974, he was arrested by civil authorities for speeding and driving without a license.  He was released to military control on 23 August 1974.  

8.  On 4 September 1974, charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being AWOL from on or about 8 July 1974 until on or about 23 August 1974.

9.  The applicant’s request for discharge is not available.  Around October 1974, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, and directed he receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

10.  On 11 November 1974, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  He had completed 1 year, 8 months, and         29 days of creditable active service during his second enlistment.  His DD Form 214 shows he had 53 days of lost time.

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 trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  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.

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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  
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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation       635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  

2.  The applicant’s contentions have been considered.  However, based upon the overall quality of his service during his second enlistment, the type of discharge he received was and still is appropriate.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_x___  __x___  __x___  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.




      __          x________
                CHAIRPERSON


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080001930


4


DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
1901 SOUTH BELL STREET 2ND FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA  22202-4508