IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  21 January 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090018287 


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 discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he should have received an honorable discharge.  His first sergeant misused his position by using military personnel who were serving Article 15 punishment as laborers on his private farm.  This incident was later exposed and followed with court-martial action.  The applicant states that his life was threatened due to having knowledge of the situation.  He also states while serving in Alaska, his wife was led to believe she had received dental treatment which in fact never occurred.

3.  The applicant provides not 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 and entered the Regular Army on 14 May 1975 for a period of 3 years.  The applicant completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 64C (Motor Transport Operator).  The highest grade he attained was pay grade E-3.

3.  On 26 January 1976, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for disobeying a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer.  The punishment imposed was 14 days of extra duty and restriction.

4.  On 25 February 1976, the applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order and for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 February to 9 February 1976.  The punishment imposed was 14 days of extra duty and restriction; and a forfeiture of $93.00 pay.

5.  On 17 February 1977, the applicant was convicted by a special court martial for the following offenses:  Being AWOL from 27 December 1976 through
3 January 1977, 4 January through 7 January 1977, 7 January through
24 January 1977, and 28 January through 1 February 1977; and failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  He was sentenced to a reduction to pay grade E-1; hard labor without confinement for 2 months; and a forfeiture of $249.00 pay for
6 months.

6.  On 25 April 1977, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for leaving his appointed place of duty without the proper authority, the motor pool, and failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, the orderly room, both on 12 April 1977; and for the wrongful appropriation of $270.00 in U.S. currency, the property of the U.S Government, on or about 17 March 1977.

7.  On 6 May 1977, 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Following counseling, the applicant submitted a voluntary written request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200.  In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged that he understood 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 or dishonorable discharge.  He also acknowledged that he understood that if his 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 (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  

8.  On 20 May 1977, the commanding general approved the request for discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

9.  On 26 May 1977, the applicant was discharged.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant completed a total of 1 year, 11 months, and 6 days of creditable active military service and he had 37 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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.  An under other than honorable conditions discharge 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.

13.  On 27 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions were carefully considered, however, there is no evidence and the applicant has not provided any evidence that shows the discharge he was issued was inequitable or unjust.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His discharge under other than honorable conditions was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that his request was made under coercion, duress, or that his rights were violated in any way.  Further, the applicant acknowledged in a signed statement that he understood if his request for discharge was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits administered by the VA and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged he understood that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian if he were issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

4.  There is no evidence that the applicant's life was threatened.  There is also no evidence of a dental issue involving his wife.

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)                                         AR20090018287



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090018287



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1