IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  16 February 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100020855 


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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was in a terrible marriage and his wife ran off with another man abandoning him and their infant twin boys.  He further states that he was very young and made some bad decisions.  It is no excuse for going absent without leave (AWOL) but his children were his priority.

3.  The applicant provided no additional 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's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 October 1968 at almost 18 years of age and held military occupational specialty 91B (Medical Specialist).

3.  On 15 November 1968, he received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty on 12 November 1968. 

4.  In October 1971, while assigned to the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Polk, LA, court-martial charges were preferred against him.  The specific charges preferred against him are not available for review with this case.

5.  On 14 October 1971, he consulted with legal counsel who advised him of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct discharge or dishonorable discharge, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of a request for discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial.

6.  He acknowledged he understood by requesting discharge if the discharge request was approved, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He also acknowledged he understood that he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws and he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.

7.  In a statement he submitted with his request for discharge he indicated, in effect, he no longer wanted to be in the Army.  While stationed in Germany he sent his wife back to the states because he was an E-4 and in debt.  He received an Article 15 in September 1970 for indebtedness, general (poor) attitude, missing bed-check, and suspected drug use.  At that time he had been using marijuana, hashish, opium, and cocaine.  In October 1970, he started using heroin.  On 15 November 1970, he went on leave to the states, did not return to his unit, got a job in Texas, and sold drugs to support his drug habit.  In May 1971, his wife left him because of his heroin addiction.  He was arrested in October 1971 and returned to Fort Polk, LA.  He has reconciled with his wife and wants to be out of the Army.  He further stated he understood he would receive an undesirable discharge but he felt that was better than being court-martialed.
8.  On 12 November 1971, his chain of command recommended approval of his discharge with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

9.  On 13 November 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
chapter 10.  The separation authority further directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.

10.  On 17 November 1971, he was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) he was issued shows he completed 2 years, 5 months, and 18  days of total active service with 240 days of lost time.

11.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  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.

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 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 his undesirable discharge was due to the misconduct of his former spouse.  However, the evidence in the available records contradicts this argument.

2.  He contends his discharge should be upgraded because he was young and foolish at the time of his service.  Records show that he was almost 20 years of age at the time of his offenses.  However, there is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.

3.  His record shows he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  As such, he voluntarily requested discharge from the Army to avoid a trial by court-martial.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. 

4.  In view of the foregoing, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he 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)                                         AR20100020855



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100020855



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1