IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  1 April 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090020579 


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 discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he used poor judgment when deciding to go absent without leave (AWOL) during his divorce. 

3.  The applicant did not provide any additional documentary evidence.

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 originally enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 22 July 1976 and was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty 16P (Chaparral Crewman).  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 August 1976.  He reenlisted in the Regular Army on 14 September 1978. 
3.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows in item 21 (Time Lost) the applicant was AWOL during the period 3 December 1982 through 
9 February 1983.

4.  A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) indicates the applicant was charged for being AWOL during the period 22 December 1982 to 10 February 1983.

5.  On 14 February 1983, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel).  Prior to submitting his request, 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 Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.

6.  In his voluntary request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood by requesting discharge he was admitting guilt to the charge against him or of a lesser included offense and the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge was authorized.  He further acknowledged 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, and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.
  
7.  On 6 April 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 2 May 1983, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He completed a total of 6 years, 6 months and 16 days of creditable active military service with 69 days of time lost.

8.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge and was denied on 30 January 1997. 

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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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.

11.  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 request for upgrade of his discharge was carefully considered and not supported by the evidence in this case.

2.  The applicant was charged with the commission of an offense 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.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  Based on his record of indiscipline, which includes 69 days of being AWOL, the applicant's service clearly does 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 an honorable or a general 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)                                         AR20090020579





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090020579



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1