IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	17 September 2008  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080011115 


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 an upgrade of his discharge.

2.  The applicant did not state why his discharge should be upgraded. 

3.  The applicant did not provide any additional documentary evidence 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 records show he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 22 April 1977.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 05C (Radio Teletype Writer/Operator).  The highest rank/grade he attained during his military service was private (PV2)/E-2.

3.  The applicant's records show that he was awarded the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.  His records do not show any achievements or special recognition during his military service.

4.  The applicant's record reveals a history of disciplinary problems which includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 30 May 1978, for being disrespectful in language towards a superior noncommissioned officer (NCO), on or about 10 May 1978.  His punishment consisted of reduction to private (PVT)/E-1 (suspended for 4 months), a forfeiture of $92.00, and 14 days of extra duty. 

5.  On 6 July 1978, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for assault against a superior NCO, by raising a grass cutting swing blade in his hands in a threatening manner and rapidly approaching towards an NCO, and of wrongfully communicating a threat to injure an NCO, on 9 June 1978.
	
6.  On 17 July 1978, the suspended portion of the applicant’s punishment imposed on 30 May 1978 (reduction to PVT/E-1) was vacated.

7.  On 17 July 1978, the applicant’s immediate commander also initiated a Bar to Reenlistment Certificate against the applicant citing the applicant’s lack of respect towards his senior NCO, failure to repair, and his disrespectfulness and assault against another Soldier.  He was furnished a copy of the certificate and he elected to make a statement on his own behalf.  However, after reviewing his statement, the applicant’s battalion commander approved the bar to reenlistment.

8.  On 18 July 1978, the applicant also accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for disobeying a lawful order on 14 July 1978.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $92.00 pay and 14 days of extra duty.




9.  On 26 July 1978, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other than honorable conditions, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of a request for discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations). 

10.  In his request for discharge, he indicated that he was making the request due to his own free will and he was not subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person.  He further indicated he understood that by requesting this discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or to a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions.  He further acknowledged he understood that if the 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. 

11.  On 10 August 1978, the applicant’s unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  

12.  On 11 August 1978, the applicant's battalion commander recommended approval of the applicant's discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

13.  On 14 August 1978, the applicant’s brigade commander recommended approval of the applicant's discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

14.  On 17 August 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in accordance with chapter 10 of AR 635-200 and directed he receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate and be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.  On 11 September 1978, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of his discharge shows he was discharged for the good of the service with an under other than honorable conditions character of service. This form further confirms the applicant had completed a total of 1 year, 4 months, and 13 days of creditable active military service.

15.  On 1 April 1990, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

16.  AR 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.

17.  AR 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.

18.  AR 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 applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded.

2.  The applicant’s record shows he was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.



3.  Based on his 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 also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to either a general or an honorable discharge.

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)                                         AR20080011115



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080011115



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1