IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       25 September 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080010089 


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 that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge was inappropriate because it was based on one incident in his military career and that there were no disciplinary actions on his record.  He states that he made some irrational decisions that caused him mental anguish due to domestic squabbles and that he subsequently lost his wife and home. 

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 enlisted on 21 September 1977 for a period of 4 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 63B (wheel vehicle mechanic). 

3.  On 2 June 1978, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 17 May 1978 to 19 May 1978.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended), a forfeiture of pay, restriction (suspended), and extra duty. 

4.  The applicant went AWOL on 22 June 1978 and he was apprehended by civil authorities on 28 December 1978 and returned to military control.  On 
29 December 1978, charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL period.  

5.  On 2 January 1979, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested 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 he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished an other than honorable conditions discharge; that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (now known as the Department of Veterans Affairs); that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits; and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.  

6.  On 24 February 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

7.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 8 March 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of court-martial.  He had served 11 months and 7 days of active service with 191 days of lost time due to AWOL.

8.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the 
individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contention that his discharge was inappropriate because it was based on one incident in his military career and that there was no disciplinary actions on his record.  Evidence of record shows the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for being AWOL for 
2 days prior to going AWOL for 189 days. 

2.  There is no evidence the applicant sought assistance from his chain of command or chaplain on a way to resolve his problems within established Army procedures prior to going AWOL.  

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.

5.  The applicant’s brief record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 191 days of lost time.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge.





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.


      _______ _ 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)                                         AR20080010089





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080010089



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1