IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  15 December 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110012586 


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. 

2.  The applicant states:

* He had 32 months of honorable service prior to going absent without leave (AWOL) due to a family emergency
* His mother was gravely ill which was verified by the Red Cross
* He had excellent military record prior to his mother's illness
* He needs medical benefits
* He recently had heart surgery 

3.  The applicant provides no documentary 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 15 February 1968 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 71F (postal clerk).  

3.  On 13 January 1969, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 7 January 1969 to 11 January 1969.        

4.  He went AWOL on 7 July 1970 and was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control on 26 December 1973.

5.  His record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge.  However, his Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) proceedings indicate: 

* charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL period on 
      3 January 1974
* he consulted with counsel in reference to his request for discharge on 
     10 January 1974
*  the separation authority approved the undesirable discharge on 1 March 1974  

6.  He was discharged on 18 March 1974 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with an undesirable discharge.  He completed a total of 2 years, 7 months, and 11 days of total active service with 1268 days of lost time.

7.  On 7 May 1980, the ADRB denied his request for a general discharge.

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, the 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 Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was 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.  He contends he went AWOL due to a family emergency.  However, family problems are not normally grounds for upgrading a discharge.  There is no evidence of record to show he sought assistance from his chain of command, chaplain, or any other available resources on a way to resolve his problems within established Army procedures prior to going AWOL.

2.  He contends he is in need of medical benefits (apparently he means from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)).  However, a discharge is not changed for the purpose of obtaining DVA benefits.

3.  His record of service included one NJP and 1268 days of lost time.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable or a general discharge.

4.  His voluntary request for separation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.


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)                                         AR20110012586





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110012586



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1