IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  8 May 2008

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080002874 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he did not receive the proper training as a diesel mechanic, that he was too young, and that he was under emotional stress. He also contends that he was told if he kept a clean record as a citizen he could get his discharge upgraded.

3.  The applicant provides no additional 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 was born on 22 July 1957.  He enlisted on 30 December 1975 for a period of 4 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 62B (engineer equipment repairman).

3.  On 18 June 1976, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) for approximately 2 hours on 14 June 1976.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended), a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction.  On 16 July 1976, the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 18 June 1976 was vacated.

4.  The applicant went AWOL from 7 July 1976 to 16 July 1976, 21 July 1976 to 26 July 1976, 3 August 1976 to 10 August 1976, and 31 August 1976 to 
14 October 1976.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 18 October 1976 for the AWOL charges.  

5.  On 22 October 1976, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he understood that he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, that he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration and that he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge.  He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In summary, he stated that he went AWOL because he lost interest, that he knew he did not belong in the Army, and that he wanted to be with his family.  He stated that he realized he would go through life with this type of discharge but he would and could make it for himself.

6.  On 2 November 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. 

7.  On 4 November 1976, the applicant underwent a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.  In item 8 (Statement of Examinee’s Present Health and Medications Currently Used) on his Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 
4 November 1976, he reported that he was “Good, Normal.”

8.  The applicant underwent a Mental Status Evaluation on 4 November 1976 and the military doctor indicated that he was “OK.”


9.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 
11 November 1976 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served a total of 9 months and 29 days of creditable active service with 65 days of lost time due to being AWOL.  

10.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was diagnosed with any mental or medical condition prior to his discharge. 

11.  On 20 July 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a general discharge.

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.  At the time, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 

13.  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.  

14.  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.

15.  Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is capable of performing, and if reclassification action is warranted.  Four numerical designations (1-4) are used to reflect different levels of functional capacity in six factors (PULHES): P-physical capacity or stamina, U-upper extremities, L-lower extremities, H-hearing and ears, E-eyes, and S-psychiatric.  Numerical designator "1" under all factors indicates that an individual is considered to possess a high level of medical fitness and, consequently, is medically fit for any military assignment.  

16.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor.  The applicant was 18 years old when he enlisted and he successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training.       

2.  The applicant’s contention that he was under emotional stress was noted.  However, evidence of record shows he underwent a separation physical examination on 4 November 1976 and was found qualified for separation.  He reported that he was in good health at that time.  He also underwent a mental status evaluation on 4 November 1976 wherein he was determined to be “OK” by a competent medical authority.  There is no medical evidence of record that shows he was diagnosed with any mental condition prior to his release from active duty.    

3.  A discharge upgrade is not automatic.

4.  Since the applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 65 days of lost time, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge or a general discharge.

5.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.    

6.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.





BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___XX___  __XX____  _XX____  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.


       _        XX         ___
       CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080002874



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080002874


5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1