IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  12 August 2008

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080006392 


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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he made a mistake due to personal problems and is sorry.  He loved the Army and feels ashamed.  He has become a better person and wants his discharge upgraded.

3.  The applicant provides no supporting documentation.

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.  On 7 February 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his initial training to include the Basic Airborne Course and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B1P (Infantryman with parachutist qualification).

3.  On 10 June 1983, the applicant was assigned for duty as a rifleman with the 325th Infantry Regiment at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

4.  The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) during the period from on or about 12 January to 31 January 1984; and during the period from on or about
7 February to 12 February 1984. 

5.  On 26 March 1984, charges were preferred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for violation of Article 86, AWOL, during January and February 1984.

6.  On 30 March 1984, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. 

7.  In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or to a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.   

8.  On 10 April 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  On 24 April 1984, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He had completed a total of 1 year, 1 month, and 
23 days of creditable active military service and had accrued 26 days of time lost due to AWOL.

9.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an 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 trail by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

11.  Under the UCMJ, the maximum punishment allowed for violation of Article 86, for AWOL of more than 3 days but not more than 30 days is confinement for 
6 months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 6 months.  The UCMJ also provides, in pertinent part, that if an accused is found guilty of two or more offenses for none of which dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge is authorized, the fact that the authorized confinement without substitution for these offenses is 6 months or more will, in addition, authorize bad-conduct discharge and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  Notwithstanding the applicant's assertion that he has become a better person and that his mistakes were due to personal problems, there is no available evidence to show that he had any mitigating circumstances or that his AWOL was a reasonable solution to them.

4.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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
      
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)                                         AR20070016793



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080006392



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1