IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  20 December 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110013391 


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 (HD).  

2.  The applicant states he was told his discharge would be changed in six months if he stayed out of trouble.  

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his application. 

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 United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 
4 October 1974.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). 

3.  On 16 March 1978, the applicant was ordered to active duty for 18 months and 21 days as a result of failing to satisfy his participation requirements.  

4.  The record shows the applicant attained the rank of private first class (PFC) on 12 April 1978, and that this is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  

5.  The applicant’s disciplinary history includes his acceptance of non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 10 April 1979 for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 through 3 April 1979.  

6.  On 24 May 1979, a court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for violating Article 121 of the UCMJ by stealing currency, three rings, a lady’s watch, and a man’s watch.  

7.  On 8 June 1979, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and after being advised of the basis of the contemplated trial by court-marital and the maximum permissible punishment under the UCMJ, of the possible effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and of the rights and procedures available to him, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial.

8.  In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged that by submitting the request for discharge he was admitting he was guilty of the charge against him or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He also confirmed his understanding that if his request for discharge were approved, he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He further stated he understood that receipt of an under other than honorable conditions discharge could result in his being deprived of many or all Army benefits, his possible ineligibility for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under State and Federal laws.  

9.  On 20 June 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a UOTHC discharge and reduction to 


private (PV1)/E-1.  On 25 June 1979, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed 1 year, 3 months, and 8 days of creditable active military during that period of active duty, and a total of 1 year, 8 months, and 29 days of creditable active military service.  

10.  On 23 April 1985, after carefully reviewing the applicant’s record of service and the issues he presented, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) found the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge and to not change the reason for his discharge.

11.  The applicant provides four third-party character reference letters from family, friends, and co-workers that all attest to his good character and post-service conduct.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

   a.  Chapter 10 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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

	b.  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.

	c.  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 request for upgrade of his UOTHC discharge because he was informed the discharge would be changed if he stayed out of trouble for six months has been carefully considered.  However, the Army does not now have nor has it ever had a policy that allows for the upgrade of a discharge based solely on the passage of time.  A discharge may be upgraded by either the ADRB or this Board if there is evidence of some error or injustice related to discharge processing, or if there are mitigating factors that would support an upgrade on an equity basis. 

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  
It also shows that after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  The UOTHC discharge he received was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance.  His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of his discharge and it does not support an upgrade to an honorable or a general discharge at this late date. 

4.  The applicant has failed to provide evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge process, nor has he advanced any factors sufficiently mitigating to support equity consideration in this case.  Therefore, given he elected to request an administrative discharge to avoid a punitive discharge and because his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the 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)                                         AR20110013391



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110013391



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1