IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	7 July 2009  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090003705 


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 under other than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he was unaware of the long term effects of this discharge and that he could have received an honorable discharge.

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 record shows enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 5 November 1974.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 68H (Aircraft Hydraulics Repairman).  The highest rank/grade he attained during his military service was private/E-1.

3.  On 11 July 1975, the applicant failed to report to Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, CA, for a flight to Korea, his next duty assignment.  Accordingly he was reported in an absent without leave status (AWOL) on 11 July 1975 and was subsequently dropped from the Army rolls on 9 August 1975.  He returned to military control on 9 September 1975.

4.  On 23 September 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for one specification of being AWOL during the period on or about 11 July 1975 through on or about 9 September 1975.

5.  On 2 October 1975, 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 635-200 (Personnel Separations).

6.  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 also indicated that he was making this request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion and indicated that he had been advised of the implications that were attached to his request.  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, and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  

7.  On 8 October 1975, the applicant’s intermediate commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The intermediate commander also indicated that the applicant's behavior qualified him for a misconduct discharge and that he was an immature individual with constant discipline problems. 
8.  On 16 October 1975, 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 Undesirable Discharge Certificate and be reduced the lowest enlisted grade.  On 5 November 1974, the applicant was accordingly discharged.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued 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 he completed 9 months and 18 days of creditable active military service and had 60 days of lost time.  

9.  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.

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 under other than honorable conditions 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 (emphasis added), 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's contention that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable because he was unaware of the long term implications of such a discharge was carefully considered.  However, it is insufficient to grant him the requested relief.

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.  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 this requirement.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly did 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)                                         AR20090003705



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090003705



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1