IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    20 May 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090017862 


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 upgrade of his discharge.

2.  The applicant states his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 28 months of service with no other incidents resulting in adverse action.  He also requests a copy of the findings of the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) he appeared before in August 1972.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents in support of this 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 requested a copy of his ADRB findings for a panel held in August 1972.  While there is no evidence the applicant appeared before an ADRB panel in August 1972, there is evidence that his records were reviewed by the ADRB on 28 January 1971, 22 June 1977, 22 June 1978, and 24 July 1980.  A copy of his July 1980 ADRB case report is available and will be provided to the applicant.  As a result, this issue will not be discussed further in this Record of Proceedings.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 March 1968.

4.  The applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), in September 1969 as a result of being absent without leave (AWOL) on 2 September 1969.

5.  The applicant's DD Forms 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 26 September 1969 and 7 October 1969, list the following charges:

* 15 September 1969, stealing one M151A1 (Army Jeep) valued at $3,196.00
* 16 September 1969, stealing one M35A1 (2 1/2-ton vehicle) valued at $6,353.62
* 16 September 1969, AWOL from on or about 14 to 16 September 1969

6.  On 27 October 1969, 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 undesirable discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

7.  In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated he understood that by requesting a 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 or dishonorable discharge.  He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request were 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 laws.

8.  On 31 December 1969, the separation authority directed that the applicant be separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 8 January 1970, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he completed a total of 1 year, 9 months, and 19 days of creditable active service with 1 day of lost time.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred.  Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service.  Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

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 voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid a trial by court-martial.  He acknowledged he understood that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  The applicant's record of indiscipline includes one nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for the theft of two Army vehicles and AWOL.  Based on this record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  His misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he is not entitled to a discharge upgrade.

3.  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)                                         AR20090017862



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1