IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  20 October 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110009551 


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 an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states he completed period of obligated service and the UOTHC discharge was unjustified and he was told it would be changed after six months.

3.  The applicant provides copies of pages from his Official Military Personnel File including his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests that the Board take into consideration the fact the applicant completed his initial period of obligated service.

2.  Counsel states the applicant has adequately set forth his contentions on the application.

3.  Counsel provides no additional argumentation or 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, for three years, on 16 October 1978, completed training, and was awarded military occupational specialty 91B (Medical Specialist).  

3.  The applicant voluntarily extended his period of obligated active service first in June and then in September 1979 for a total of 8 months.  His new ETS (expiration term of service) date was 16 June 1982.

4.  The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, as follows on:

	a.  29 May 1979, for being absent without leave (AWOL) 13 - 23 May 1979;

	b.  13 May 1980, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty;

	c.  30 December 1980, for with intent to deceive sign a meal card register; between 8 September 1980 and 4 December 1980, stealing 104 meals; and failure to go to his appointed place of duty;

	d.  7 July 1981, for failure to pay a just debt and failure to keep a promise to make monthly payments on a just debt; and 

	e.  2 December 1981, for being AWOL 21 - 23 November 1981.

5.  On 10 December 1981, the applicant's unit commander commenced separation proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature and an established pattern of failure to pay just debts. 

6.  On 15 December 1981, the applicant acknowledged the proposed separation action and requested to appear before a board of officers.  On 22 January 1982, the applicant withdrew his request for a board of officers.

7.  On 3 February 1982, the separation authority waived the rehabilitative transfer option and directed the applicant be discharged UOTHC. 

8.  The applicant was discharged UOTHC on 9 February 1982.  He had completed 3 years, 3 months, and 10 days of creditable service with 14 days of lost time due to AWOL.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the policies and procedures for enlisted personnel separations.  Chapter 3 outlines the criteria for characterization of service.  It provides the following:

	a.  an HD is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty;

	b.  a general discharge is a separation under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an HD;

	c.  a UOTHC discharge is issued when there is one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from conduct expected of a Soldier; and 

	d.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  As in effect at that time, paragraph 14-33b was for a pattern of misconduct including frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and a pattern of failure to pay just debts.  Action was to be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Contrary to his statement, the applicant did not complete his full period of obligated active service.  In 1979 he voluntarily extended his period of obligated active service an additional 8 months beyond his initial 3-year obligation.  Additionally, the applicant would have had to make up the lost time to meet his total period of obligated service.  He did not serve to either of these extended dates.

2.  During the applicant's three years of service he received NJP on four occasions and his command determined that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed.  
3.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge was commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.  There is no basis on which to upgrade his discharge to either honorable or general.

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)                                         AR20110009551





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110009551



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1