IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       2 APRIL 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080019285 


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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states in effect, that he was young at the time.  He listened to his peers and friends and went absent without leave (AWOL).  At the time of his discharge, he was told he could get his discharge upgraded after a time.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents 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 in the Regular Army on 30 October 1978 for a period of 4 years.  At the completion of basic combat training and advanced individual training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 51N (water treatment and plumbing system specialist).  His highest grade held was private first class, E-3.

3.  On 1 December 1980, the applicant accepted nonjudical punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for wrongful possession of marijuana.

4.  On 7 April 1982, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 16 March 1982 to 18 March 1982.

5.  On 24 October 1983, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 14 May 1982 to 19 October 1983.

6.  On 26 October 1983, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a UOTHC was issued.  He did not submit statements in his own behalf.

7.  On 1 December 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UOTHC discharge.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged from active duty on 13 December 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UOTHC discharge.  He had completed 3 years, 8 months, and 7 days of active military service with 525 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

9.  There is no evidence which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
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.

12.  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 applicant states he was young at the time and that he listened to his peers and friends and went AWOL.  However, age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor for upgrading a discharge.

2.  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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

3.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a UOTHC discharge.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

4.  The applicant's record of service shows he received two Article 15s and was AWOL for a total of 525 days.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel for either a fully honorable or general discharge.

5.  There is no evidence of record which indicates the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust; therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for an upgrade of his 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.



      _____________XXX____________
                 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)                                         AR20080019285



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080019285



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1