IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       14 OCTOBER 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090009042 


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 prior to going absent without leave (AWOL) he had a good record.  He contends that after he volunteered for assignment to Germany as a reforger, a part of the U.S. Forces in NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization], he received a commendation there.  He contends that he is older, wiser, and unemployed and that he needs assistance from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  He further states that he has medical problems, 800 stitches in his head, arthritis, and a fractured neck.   

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) 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 29 July 1974 for a period of 
3 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 12B (combat engineer).   

3.  On 7 August 1975, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 10 July 1975 to 31 July 1975.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.

4.  On 20 April 1976, the applicant went AWOL and returned to military control on 18 June 1976.    

5.  The applicant's charge sheet is not available.

6.  On an unknown date, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he understood that he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, that he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration and that he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

7.  The separation authority action is not available. 

8.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 14 July 1976 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served a total of 1 year, 
8 months, and 26 days of creditable active service with 79 days of lost time due to AWOL.  His DD Form 214 shows the National Defense Service Medal, the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar as authorized awards.     

9.  There is no indication in the available records which show 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 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.  At the time, an undesirable discharge was 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.  A discharge is not upgraded for the purpose of obtaining DVA benefits.
 
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.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he failed to do so.  
  
3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 
79 days of lost time.  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.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant 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)                                         AR20090009042





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090009042



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1