IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  21 April 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090000898 


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 to an honorable discharge (HD).  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the charge of theft leveled against him was untrue and that he borrowed the money in question.  He also states that the second charge against him was an error in judgment for which the punishment was too severe.  He claims he was generally an honorable Soldier and had been often commended.  

3.  The applicant provides no documentary 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's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 15 February 1985, and was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 45N (M60A1/A3Tank Turret Mechanic).  

3.  The record shows the applicant was promoted to specialist four (SP4)/E-4 on 
15 February 1985, and that this is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.  It further shows that during his active duty tenure he earned the Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, and the First Class (Expert) Badge with Grenade Bar.  His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  

4.  The applicant's disciplinary history includes his acceptance of non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following separate occasions for the offenses indicated:  8 January 1985, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty; and 
16 September 1985, for violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully possessing and securing a pistol outside of the unit arms room.  

5.  On 20 June 1985, a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was prepared preferring
a court-martial charge against the applicant for two specifications of violating Article 121 of the UCMJ by stealing stereo equipment valued at $150.00, which was the property of another Soldier; and for stealing $75.00 from another 
Soldier.   

6.  On 18 July 1985, 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 UOTHC discharge if his request for discharge were approved, and of the procedures and rights available to him.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service.  In his discharge request, he acknowledged his understanding that by requesting discharge, he was admitting that he was guilty of the charge(s) against him or of a lesser included offense(s) therein contained which also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further stated that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation, because he had no desire to perform further military service.  He also acknowledged his understanding that he could receive an UOTHC discharge, and of the possible effects of that discharge, which could include his being ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA), that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law, and that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life as a result of receiving an UOTHC discharge.  
7.  On 16 August 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The separation authority further directed that the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.  On 19 September 1985, the applicant was discharged accordingly.    

8.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 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, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A UOTHC discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial.  However, the separation authority may direct a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD), if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment.  An HD is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper.

10.  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.

11.  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's request that his UOTHC be upgraded to an HD because he was not guilty of one of the theft charges, and that the other was the result of poor judgment, for which the punishment was too severe.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. 

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was charged with the commission of a offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The record shows that after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request for discharge, he admitted guilt to the charge against him or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  The record also shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in him receiving a punitive discharge.  The UOTHC discharge he received was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance.  

4.  The applicant's record includes a disciplinary history that includes his receipt of NJP on two separate occasions and it documents no acts of valor or significant achievement that would have supported the issuance of a GD or an HD by the separation authority at the time of his discharge, or that would support an upgrade to a GD or an HD at this time.  

5.  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)                                         AR20090000898



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090000898



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1