IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080008710 


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 (UD), characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he went to the AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) for alcoholism and drug addiction, plus severe mental illness changes.  He has been mentally ill since he was 7 years of age.  He was a full-blown alcoholic and drug addict at the age of 12.  He also wants the ridiculous homosexual things taken out of his records.  He was not properly treated and medicated at Tripler Army Hospital.  The doctor he was assigned to told him "there was nothing wrong with him and that everything that happened was a ploy to get out of trouble."  He was not allowed proper representation as he was incompetent mentally and emotionally to even care what happened to him.  He was coerced into signing something that caused his discharge.

3.  He adds that if the State and Federal government knew the truth, he is sure the Board would find it in the interest of justice to know that the prejudicial actions of those who had control of over his life at the time covered up the facts leading up to his mental breakdown, and the reasons he became addicted and alcohol dependent.  He was not competent at the time of these offenses. 

4.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) in support of his request.



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 he enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 January 1974.  He was trained as a Wireman, in military occupational specialty (MOS), 36K.  He was promoted to PV2/E-2 on 16 May 1974.  

3.  Item 21, of the applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record -  Part II), shows that he was absent without leave (AWOL) on 10 July 1974          (1 day), from 3 February 1975 to 18 February 1975 (16 days), and from 4 March 1975 to 13 October 1975 (220 days).

4.  All the documents containing the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not present in the available records.  However, the applicant's records contain a copy his DD Form 214 which shows that on 10 December 1975, he was discharged, in the pay grade of E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  
He was furnished an undesirable discharge, with his service characterized as UOTHC.  He had a total of 1 year, 2 months, and 27 days of creditable service.  

5.  Item 21 (Time Lost), of the applicant's DD Form 214, shows he had 237 days of time lost.

6.  The applicant's signature was affixed to item 29 (Signature of Member being Separated), of his DD Form 214, indicating he had reviewed the information shown on the form and it was complete and correct, to the best of his knowledge.

7.  The applicant’s medical records are unavailable for review.  A review of his records failed to show any documentation relating to alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness or homosexual activity while he served on active duty.  The applicant also did not provide any specific information or documentary evidence that the Board could consider in making its decision.  
8.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.  

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could, at any time, after the charges had been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service,
in lieu of trial by court-martial.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.  

10.  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.

11.  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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  All the facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are unavailable for review. 

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The available evidence shows that the applicant's discharge was based on misconduct which resulted in court-martial charges being preferred against him.  Rather than face a court-martial, it appears the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service. 

4.  The applicant's claim that he was mentally ill since the age of 7 and that he was a full-blown alcoholic and drug addict since the age of 12 is not supported by the evidence of record.  It also appears that the applicant is attempting to mitigate the severity of his misconduct by his indication he has attended AA and has experience severe changes due to mental illness; however, his statements are not supported by the evidence of record and he has provided none to support his revelation.

5.  The applicant alleges that he was not properly treated and medicated at Tripler Army Hospital and the doctor he was assigned to told him "there was nothing wrong with him and that everything that happened was a ploy to get out of trouble."  However, his medical records are not available for review and he has provided no evidence to support his allegations.

6.  The applicant's claims that he wants the ridiculous homosexual things expunged from his records is acknowledged; however, a review of his records failed to show any documentation relating to homosexual activity.  If information related to his involvement in homosexual activity was in his record, it is not now available for review by the Board and it cannot be addressed at this time.  In any event, the applicant has provided no evidence to show that this information should be expunged from his record if it were filed there.

7.  The applicant contends that he was not allowed proper representation as he was incompetent mentally and emotionally to even care what happened to him and that he was coerced into signing something that caused his discharge.  He has provided no evidence, and there is none, to support his contentions.  He attested that his DD Form 214 was correct with no errors by affixing his signature to his DD Form 214, on the date of his discharge.  

8.  There is no evidence in the applicant's records, and the applicant has provided none, to show that his discharge was unjust.  He also has not provided evidence sufficient to mitigate the character of his discharge.

9.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show, to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise 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
      
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)                                         AR20080008710



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080008710



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1