IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  29 December 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100016745 


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 (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states at the time of his discharge he was dealing with some very difficult issues in his life.  He was going through a very rough time in his marriage and did not have the model family to turn to [for help].  He was immature and did not handle those issues in the best way.  He made a bad judgment and went absent without leave (AWOL).  With much regret, he realized about 4 months later that he had made a terrible mistake.  He hopes that this review would take into consideration that he had completed his first enlistment.  Because his infraction occurred during his second period of service he believes his first period of service was honorable.  An upgrade of his discharge after 
26 years and 6 months would help him be more productive in his civic, social, and religious duties as an ordained clergy.  He accepts any wrong doing that he did and asks now for the Army's forgiveness.  Though he made an error in judgment years ago, he used what he gained from the experience in the military to become the productive citizen he is now.
 
3.  The applicant provides copies of:

	a.  his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) ending on 17 November 1983;



	b.  his DD Form 215 (Correction of DD Form 214) dated 2 February 1987;

	c.  his Certificates of Ordination showing his position as Deacon, Minister, and Bishop;

	d.  his Certificates of Membership in the Potters House International Pastoral Alliance and in the Bread of Life Christian Ministries;

	e.  a letter from the Bishop, International Assemblies, dated 1 December 2007; 

	f.  two letters from the Internal Revenue Service exempting Federal income taxes; and

	g.  a 2-page document discussing "TLC Quality Initiatives, Inc."

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 5 September 1978, the applicant, at the age of 18 years and 5 months, enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewman).  He was subsequently assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

3.  The applicant progressed through the ranks attaining sergeant, pay grade E-5 on 4 September 1982.

4.  On 9 April 1982, the applicant reenlisted for another term of service in the U.S. Army.



5.  On 30 August 1983, charges were preferred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for AWOL from on or about 28 April to 30 August 1983. 

6.  On 31 August 1983, 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 a UOTHC discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.

7.  After consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the UCMJ, and that he could receive a UOTHC discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a UOTHC discharge.

8.  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 VA, and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.

9.  On 7 November 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be discharged UOTHC.

10.  On 17 November 1983, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He had completed a total of 4 years, 8 months, and 19 days of creditable active military service and had accrued a total of 181 days of time lost.

11.  On 4 December 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the 


authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trail by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

13.  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.

14.  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 contends that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable because he was immature at the time; but since then has been a productive citizen.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation 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.  The applicant's contention that he was young at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The applicant was more than 18 years of age when he enlisted, had satisfactorily completed training, and had served for about         4 years when he was promoted to sergeant, pay grade E-5.  His satisfactory performance shows that he was neither too young nor immature to serve honorably.

4.  The applicant’s claim of good post-service conduct is noted.  However, it does not sufficiently mitigate his lengthy period of AWOL.



5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20100016745





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100016745



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1