BOARD DATE:	  5 October 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100011573 


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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was told that within 6 months his discharge would be changed to honorable and he would be entitled to benefits.

3.  The applicant did not provide any additional documentary evidence in support of his request.

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.  On 7 January 1977, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his initial training and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y (Unit/
Organization Supply Clerk).  He was subsequently assigned to Fort Ord, CA.  The highest rank/grade he held on active duty was private (PV1)/E-1.

3.  On 21 April 1978, charges were preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from
28 April 1977 to 10 April 1978.

4.  On 24 April 1978, he submitted a formal request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - lieu of trial by court-martial.  He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the UCMJ, that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, and that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

5.  In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or to 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 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.

6.  On 26 May 1978, the separation authority approved his request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.

7.  On 14 July 1978, the he was discharged accordingly.  He had completed a total of 6 months and 26 days of total active service with 347 days of time lost due to AWOL.

8.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

9.  Under the UCMJ, the maximum punishment allowed for violation of Article 86, for AWOL of more than 30 days is a dishonorable discharge and confinement for 1 year.


10.  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.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 governs the policies and procedures 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, 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The records show his voluntary separation action was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  Based on the seriousness of his offense, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.

4.  The Army does not have nor has it ever had a policy that provides for the automatic upgrade of a discharge based on the passage of time.  A discharge may be upgraded by the ADRB within its 15-year statute of limitations or this 


Board if either determines the discharge was improper or inequitable.  A review of this case reveals no evidence that suggests there was any error or injustice related to the applicant's separation processing.  Therefore, it is concluded his discharge was proper and equitable and it accurately reflects the applicant's overall record of service.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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)                                         AR20100011573



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100011573



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1