IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  1 September 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110004353 


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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he feels some of his current health conditions may be service related so he would like to gain access to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) services.

3.  The applicant provides 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 February 1981.  His records show he completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 67V (Observation Scout Helicopter Repairer).  The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was specialist four (SP4)/E-4.  However, at the time of his discharge he held the rank/grade of private (PVT)/E-1.

3.  On 17 August 1984, charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 11 June through 14 August 1984.

4.  On 17 August 1984, 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 Uniform Code of Military Justice (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 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.

5.  In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated he understood that by requesting a discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further acknowledged he understood that if his 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 laws.

6.  On 7 September 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.  On 27 September 1984, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed 3 years, 5 months, and 6 days of creditable active service during this period with 64 days of lost time.

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

8.  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 VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate is normally furnished an individual who is discharged for the good of the Service.  

9.  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.

10.  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.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded was carefully considered and it was determined that there is insufficient evidence to support this request.

2.  The applicant's 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.

3.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

4.  The applicant's record of service shows he was AWOL 64 days.  Based on this record of indiscipline, the applicant's service did not meet the standard of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable or a general discharge.

5.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for an upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veteran's benefits.

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)                                         AR20110004353



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110004353



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1