IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  21 October 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100011972 


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 an upgrade of his under other than honorable discharge to a general or an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was asking for a little help in resettling his family prior to his shipping out overseas and at that time did not feel the Army cared one way or the other about it.  He concludes by stating if he had to do it over, he would have stayed in the service.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and copies his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Discharge or Transfer) for the period ending 10 March 1972.

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 he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 
1 February 1972 and served until he was honorably discharged on 30 October 1973 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted in the RA on 
31 October 1973.

3.  The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) during the following periods:

* 28 November 1973 through 27 February 1974 
* 9 April 1974 through 8 May 1974
* 10 May 1974 through 12 May 1974

4.  The applicant’s record contains a DA Form 188 (Extract Copy of Morning Report) dated 15 May 1974 which shows he was AWOL from 10 May 1974 through 13 May 1974.

5.  The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing are not available for review.  However, the available evidence includes a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that contains the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge.  The DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 18 June 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial, with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he completed a total of 
2 years and 15 days of total active service.  He also had 125 days of time lost.

6.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

7.  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 Veterans Administration (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 an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service.
8.  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 or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

9.  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 contention he went AWOL because his lapse in judgment in asking for help in resettling his family prior to his move is noted; however, there is no evidence in the applicant’s official record that shows he requested help from his chain of command. 

2.  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 would have 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 his request was made under coercion or duress.

3.  The applicant’s record of indiscipline includes 125 days lost.  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 general or an honorable 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)                                         AR20100011972



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1