IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  7 January 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090013647 


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

2.  The applicant states that his wife's illness and his 5 years of honorable service should be taken into consideration.  He states that this incident occurred nearly 18 years ago and he feels that he has paid for the injustice for nearly 2 decades.  He also states that he has received numerous awards and medals.

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 17 August 1983.  He completed training as a medical specialist and was assigned to Fort Riley, KS.  His highest grade held was sergeant.

3.  On 18 June 1991, charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 10 August 1988 to 10 June 1991.

4.  On 18 June 1991, 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 Department of Veterans Affairs if a UOTHC discharge was issued.  He did not submit statements in his own behalf.

5.  On 20 August 1991, 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 the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.

6.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged from active duty on 9 September 1991 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UOTHC discharge.  He had completed 5 years, 2 months, and 9 days of active military service with 1,034 days of lost time due to AWOL.

7.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the Army Achievement Medal, and the Driver's Badge during his tenure on active duty.

8.  There is no evidence which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 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 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.

10.  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 statements were noted.  However, these issues are not sufficiently mitigating to grant relief in this case.

2.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid 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's record of service shows he was AWOL for approximately 1,034 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 general under honorable conditions or fully honorable discharge.

4.  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.

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 to general under honorable conditions.

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)                                         AR20090013647



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090013647



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1