RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  6 May 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080002191 


	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, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.   

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he is requesting his UOTHC discharge be changed to an honorable discharge (HD).  

3.  The applicant provides no 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 record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 3 January 1980, and was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 19E (Armor Crewman). 

3.  The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows that he was promoted to private first class (PFC) on 1 October 1980, and that this is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.  It also shows that he was reduced to private/E-1 (PV1) on 22 June 1981.  His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  

4.  The applicant's disciplinary history includes his acceptance of non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 on two separate occasions.  

5.  On 17 August 1981, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time; and on 18 January 1982, he accepted NJP for disorderly conduct and destroying Government property.

6.  On 24 April 1981, a Special Court-Martial (SPCM) found the applicant guilty of violating Article 78 of the UCMJ by committing larceny and of violating Article 134 of the UCMJ by concealing the property of another Soldier.  The resultant sentence was a reduction to PV1, forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 6 months, 
30 days restriction, and 45 days hard labor without confinement.  

7.  On 1 April 1982 and 8 April 1982, Charge Sheets (DD Form 458) were prepared preferring court-martial charges against the applicant for two specifications of violating Article 86 of the UCMJ by being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 2 February through on or about 12 March 1982; and from on or about 1 April through on or about 7 April 1982.  

8.  On 9 April 1982, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the significance of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, and of the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  

9.  In his discharge request, the applicant indicated that he understood that by submitting the request for discharge, he was acknowledging his guilt of the charge against him or of a lesser included offense therein contained, which also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further indicated that he understood that if his request for discharge were approved, he could receive an UOTHC discharge, which could result in his being deprived of many or all Army benefits that he would be administratively reduced to the lowest enlisted grade, and that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  He further acknowledged his understanding that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an UOTHC discharge.  

10.  On 16 April 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service, and directed the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge.  On 5 May 1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant upon his discharge confirms he completed a total of 2 years, 2 months, and 17 days of creditable active military service, and that he accrued 45 days of time lost due to AWOL.   

11.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.  

12.  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.  An UOTHC discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial.  However, the separation authority may direct a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment.  An HD is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request that his UOTHC be upgraded was carefully considered.  However, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.  

2.  The applicant's record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does reveal an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of NJP on two separate occasions and his conviction by a SPCM.  

3.  The evidence of record also confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The record shows that after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request for discharge, he admitted guilt to the charge against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  The evidence of record further shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge.  The UOTHC discharge the applicant received was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance, and his overall record of service clearly did not support the issue of a GD or HD by the separation authority at the time, nor does it support an upgrade now.  
5.  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

___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)                                         AR20080002191



2


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