IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	   24 August 2010 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100008255 


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

2.  He states he had a very bad alcohol problem most of his life which includes the time that he served in the military.  He was unaware he was an alcoholic during his period of service.  He did not understand alcoholism and how it affected his performance as a Soldier.  He started off very well and was a good trooper until he was assigned permanent duty.  He became more and more involved with booze and he became uninterested and detached.  He has been completely sober for almost 2 years and is now an Alcoholics Anonymous member.  He knows he would have completed his military obligation honorably had it not been for the alcohol that had such a grip on him for so many years.

3.  He provides no additional documentation 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.  His military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-1 on 1 March 1977.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).  He was advanced to pay grade E-2 on 19 September 1977.  This is the highest grade he held during his period of service.

3.  On 21 December 1977, he accepted punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 21 November to 7 December 1977 and violation of a lawful general regulation on 7 December 1977.

4.  He was reported AWOL on 1 February 1978 and dropped from the rolls of his organization on 2 March 1978.  He was returned to military control on 10 April 1978.

5.  On 14 April 1978, a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was prepared by the Commander, U.S. Army Special Processing Company, Fort Knox, Kentucky.  He was charged with one specification of being AWOL from 1 February to 9 April 1978.  

6.  On 18 April 1978, after consulting with counsel, he 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 acknowledged that he had not been coerced with respect to his request for discharge.  He also acknowledged he understood he could be issued a UOTHC Discharge Certificate, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits as a result of the issuance of such a discharge, and he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration.  He waived his rights and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  In his statement, dated 18 April 1978, he indicated, in effect, he joined the Army because he had no place else to go.  He also was hoping to get his General Educational Development (GED) certificate which he was denied twice.  He requested an infantry MOS and he got it.  He could not get along living and being around other races, mainly blacks.  He had problems with blacks in high school, and in both of his units.  He did not need any more problems than he already had.  Therefore, he requested a discharge.

8.  On 22 May 1978, his unit commander recommended approval of his request for discharge with the issuance of a UOTHC Discharge Certificate.  The unit commander stated that based on the applicant's previous record of punishment he believed that additional punishment would have a minimal rehabilitative effect. 

9.  On 26 May 1978, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service, directed that a UOTHC Discharge Certificate be issued, and that he be reduced to pay grade E-1.

10.  He was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 11 July 1978 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a UOTHC discharge.  He was credited with 1 year, 1 month, and 16 days of net active service and 84 days of lost time.

11.  There is no indication he requested assistance through his chain of command for any personal problems which prevented him from completing his period of service.

12.  There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations for an upgrade of his discharge.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provided that a member who had 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 in lieu of trial by court-martial at any time after the charges had been preferred.  A UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate.  The separation authority could direct an honorable or general discharge if such a discharge was merited by the Soldier's overall record.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, specified a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions could be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allowed such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to general.  He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.  

2.  His contention that his misconduct was the result of him being an alcoholic has been considered; however, it does not support a change to his UOTHC discharge.  The evidence shows that he was punished under Article 15 for being AWOL.  He departed AWOL again and was dropped from the rolls.  Upon his return to military control, he voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He waived his opportunity to appear before a court-martial to prove his innocence if he felt he was being wrongfully charged and advised his unit commander that he desired to be discharged from the Army.  He also acknowledged he understood he could be furnished a UOTHC Discharge Certificate.  He did not mention any problems with alcohol.  He stated he could not live with and be around other races and wanted to be discharged.

3.  If the applicant had personal problems, there were many alternative remedies he could have used, but it appears he chose not to do so.  There is an absence of sufficient documentation to support his contention that he had an alcohol related problem or that he sought assistance through his chain of command or any other support channels.  

4.  The evidence shows his misconduct diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general discharge.  He provided no evidence or a convincing argument to show his discharge should be upgraded and his military records contain no evidence which would entitle him to an upgrade of his discharge.  

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting his request.

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)                                         AR20100008255



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)