IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       23 APRIL 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080019765 


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 states he is now a productive and a well-respected citizen of his community.

3.  The applicant provides two character reference letters 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 2 October 1979.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training, and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (Cannon Crewmember).  

3.  The applicant's records also show he was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16), and the First Class Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar.

4.  On 27 August 1981, the applicant pleaded guilty at a Summary Court-Martial to one specification of being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period on or about 21 June 1981 through on or about 4 August 1981.  The Court sentenced him to confinement at hard labor for 15 days, a forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for one month, and a reduction to private (PV1)/E-1.  The sentence was adjudged on 27 August 1981 and approved on 31 August 1981.

5.  The applicant's records reveal several instances of AWOL and/or confinement throughout his military service including the periods from 31 August 1981 through 7 September 1981, 19 October 1981 through 2 November 1981, and 3 May 1982 through 15 August 1982.  

6.  On 17 August 1982, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for one specification of being AWOL during the period on or about 3 May 1982 through on or about 17 August 1982.  

7.  On 19 August 1982, 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 Uniform Code of Military Justice, 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 635-200.

8.  In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of 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 Veterans Administration (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. 

9.  On 26 August 1982, the applicant's immediate commander recommended approval of the applicant’s discharge with the issuance of an under other than honorable condition discharge.  He further remarked that the applicant's conduct had rendered him triable by court-martial under circumstances that would have lead to a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and that based on his previous record, punishment would have had a minimal rehabilitative effect on him.

10.  On 26 August 1982, the applicant's acting intermediate commander also recommended approval of the applicant's discharge with the issuance of an under other than honorable condition discharge.

11.  On 31 August 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed he receive an under other than honorable conditions character of service and be reduced the lowest enlisted grade.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 27 September 1982.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued at the time shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of a court-martial with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions.  This form further confirms the applicant had completed a total of 2 years, 5 months, and 29 days of creditable active military service and had 165 days of lost time.

12.  The applicant submitted two character reference letters in which both authors comment on his productivity and outstanding citizenship to the community.

13.  There is no indication that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that Board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 

14.  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.

15.  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.

16.  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 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.  There is no evidence in the available records to substantiate an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  His character reference letters were noted, but determined to be insufficient to warrant an upgrade.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant did not submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.  

4.  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.




      _______ _   __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)                                         AR20080019765





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080019765



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1