IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  8 July 2008

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080008183 


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 reconsideration of an earlier request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that at the time of his discharge he did not understand what it [his discharge] meant or what it was.  He contends that he was told it would be the easiest and quickest way to get it behind him and to get on with his life.  He states that his conduct and efficiency ratings, behavior, and his proficiency marks were for the most part very good and that his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity and his low aptitude scores and level of education.  He points out that his record of promotions show he was generally a good service member.  

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his application. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20070009090, on 27 September 2007.

2.  The applicant’s arguments are new and will be considered by the Board. 

3.  The applicant was born on 15 July 1952.  He enlisted on 19 September 1969 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training as a light weapons infantryman.  He was promoted to private first class on 31 March 1970.  

4.  On 13 June 1970, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being derelict in the performance of his duty on 31 May 1970.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty.

5.  The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 25 October 1970 and returned to military authorities on 14 January 1971.  He went AWOL on 
2 February 1971 and returned to military authorities on 15 April 1971.  He went AWOL again on 18 June 1971 and returned to military authorities on 
23 November 1971.  On 24 November 1971, charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL periods.  Trial by special court-martial was recommended.

6.  On 13 March 1972, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  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 (now known as the Department of Veterans Affairs) 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 or general discharge.  He elected not to make a statement on his own behalf. 

7.  On 16 August 1972, the separation authority approved the request for discharge and directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge.  On 25 August 1972, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He completed 2 years and 25 days of creditable active service with 315 days of lost time due to AWOL.  

8.  On 26 May 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for a general discharge.

9.  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. 

10.  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.  

11.  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.  Although the applicant contends that his youth, immaturity, low aptitude scores, and level of education impaired his ability to serve, evidence of record shows he was 17 years old when he enlisted and he successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training.  In addition, he was promoted to the rank of private first class.    

2.  Since the applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 315 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.

3.  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.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he failed to do so.  

4.  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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20070009090, dated 27 September 2007.



      ________xxxx___________
      	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)                                         AR20080008183





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080008183



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1