IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  22 July 2008

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080007644 


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 to honorable.   

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he abused alcohol really bad and went absent without leave (AWOL) several times during the months prior to his discharge.  He no longer drinks but now has arthritis very bad in his knees and hands and needs to have his discharge upgraded so that he can obtain Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. 

3.  The applicant provides no additional 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 27 June 1968, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 31B (Field Communications/Electronics Equipment Mechanic).

3.  Available records do not show the applicant’s assignment history prior to 
9 August 1970, when he was assigned overseas with the 615th Military Police Company.

4.  On 9 August 1970, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for fighting and destroying dayroom furniture.  The punishment included reduction to pay grade E-3.

5.  On 19 August 1970, the applicant accepted NJP for being AWOL.  The punishment included reduction to pay grade E-2 and14 days restriction.

6.  On 11 May 1971, the applicant accepted NJP for being AWOL.  The punishment included a forfeiture of $30.00 pay per month for 1 month.  

7.  On 2 September 1971, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of AWOL.  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for 
1 month, reduction to pay grade E-1, and forfeiture of $127.00 pay per month for 1 month.  He served 22 days in confinement.

8.  On 29 October 1971, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of AWOL.  His sentence consisted of forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for 
1 month and 30 days restriction. 

9.  On 23 June 1972, charges were preferred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for violation of Article 86, AWOL, during the period from on or about 
1 November 1971 to 7 June 1972.

10.  On 23 June 1972, 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 undesirable 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. 

11.  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.   

12.  On 30 June 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 7 July 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He had completed a total of 2 years, 10 months, and 27 days of creditable active military service and had accrued 409 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

13.  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.

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

15.  The Manual for Courts-Martial provides for a maximum punishment of a punitive discharge and confinement for 1 year for violation of Article 86, AWOL of more than 30 days.

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.  Based on this record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct and lost time also renders his service unsatisfactory. Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

4.  The need to obtain VA benefits is not a justifiable reason to upgrade a characterization of service.

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 the aforementioned requirement.

6.  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)                                         AR20080007644



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1