IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 March 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100020977 


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 discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he was wrong for his actions.

3.  The applicant provides a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 16 June 1986 and a statement from his daughter.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 February 1971.  Upon completion of initial entry training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist).  He continued serving on active duty throughout a series of reenlistments.

3.  A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 14 May 1986, shows he departed absent without leave (AWOL) on 1 December 1985 and surrendered to military authorities on 13 May 1986 after being AWOL 163 days.

4.  On 14 May 1986, court-martial charges were preferred against him for the above AWOL offense.

5.  On 14 May 1986, he consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 due to charges being preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.

6.  He acknowledged in his request that he understood he could be issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, that he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He also acknowledged he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of a under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  On 30 May 1986, the separation authority approved his request for discharge and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  On 16 June 1986, he was discharged accordingly.

8.  In a statement authored by his daughter, she states that after 17 plus years of honorable service, her father should be given some consideration.  She contends that at the time of discharge, he and her mother were getting a divorce and it was a devastating time for him and this may have contributed to his decisions and behavior at the time.

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

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of this regulation provides 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.

   a.  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.

   b.  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 request for a discharge upgrade has been carefully considered.

2.  The evidence shows he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  The record shows that after consulting with legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request, he admitted guilt to the charge against him or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.

3.  His voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication the request was made under coercion or duress.



4.  His daughter's contention that he should be given consideration for his time in service and the circumstances at the time was noted; however, his record of indiscipline includes 163 days of lost time.  Based on this record of indiscipline and in view of the fact he voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in a punitive discharge, his overall record of service did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time and it does not support an upgrade of his discharge now.

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)                                         AR20100020977



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100020977



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1