IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       19 February 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080018882 


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 undesirable discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states that he believes enough time has passed so that he is eligible for an upgrade. 

3.  The applicant provides no documents to support 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 enlisted on 18 September 1973 and completed training and was advanced to pay grade E-2.

3.  He received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on 5 April and 10 April 1974 and was then absent without leave (AWOL) on 3 May 1974.  

4.  Court-martial charges were preferred, on 5 November 1974, for AWOL from 
3 May to 30 October 1974. 

5.  On 8 November 1974, 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 under other than honorable conditions 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.  

6.  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 Veterans Administration (VA) [now known as the Department of Veterans Affairs], and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.

7.  On 22 November 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed that an undesirable discharge be issued.

8.  The applicant was separated, on 17 December 1974, with an undesirable discharge certificate.  He had completed 8 months and 10 days of creditable service and had 201 days lost time.

9.  On 19 December 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge.

10.  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 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.

11.  The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, sets forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the UCMJ.  A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 86, for periods of AWOL in excess of 30 days.

12.  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.

13.  Paragraph 3-7b of the regulation 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 states that sufficient time has passed to warrant an upgrade.

2.  The applicant's AWOL involved almost as much time as his total creditable service and his record is devoid of any significant service or accomplishment.  

3.  There is no regulatory provision or established practice of upgrading a discharge based simply on the passage of time and the applicant has not submitted any rationale to support such a decision. 

4.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.


6.  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 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)                                         AR20080018882





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080018882



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1