IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  17 January 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110014727 


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 undesirable discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was young and ignorant and was born to a young set of parents who were not familiar with life themselves.  He goes on to state that he was a slow learner and he asks the Board to forgive his ignorance and stupidity.  He also states that he would like to enjoy what is left of his life and also to assist his grandchildren in getting on the right path.  He further states that he does not blame anyone but himself for not looking beyond that period of time to see what the future had to offer.  He states that he was blind but now he can see.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents with 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 Regular Army in Newark, New Jersey on 17 August 1966 for a period of 3 years.  He completed basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey and advanced individual training as an ordnance supply and parts specialist at Fort Lee, Virginia and transferred to Germany on 10 January 1967.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 28 April 1967.

3.  The applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) on 15 September 1967 and remained absent in desertion until he was returned to military control at Fort Dix on 16 October 1967.  He again went AWOL on 20 November 1967 and remained absent in a desertion status until he was returned to military control at Fort Dix on 16 April 1968 and charges were preferred against him.

4.  On 29 April 1968, he was convicted by a special court-martial at Fort Dix of being AWOL from 15 September to 16 October 1967 and from 20 November 1967 to 16 April 1968.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 
6 months and a forfeiture of $41.00 pay for 6 months.

5.  The applicant was returned to Germany on 15 June 1968 for assignment to another unit and on 12 July 1968 he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 1 July to 2 July 1968 with the intent to remain absent permanently.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month, a forfeiture of $73.00 pay for 1 month, and reduction to the pay grade of E-1.  However, the convening authority suspended that portion of the sentence pertaining to confinement at hard labor for 6 months unless sooner vacated.

6.  He again went AWOL from 16 August to 27 August 1968 and his court-martial sentence was vacated.

7.  On 1 November 1968, the applicant’s commander initiated action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to habits and traits of character manifested by repeated commission of AWOL offenses.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s disciplinary record, his history of going AWOL, and the fact that the applicant had stated that he would continue to go AWOL until he got out of the Army no-matter what kind of discharge he received.




8.  The applicant’s platoon leaders indicated that the applicant’s attitude towards the Army was one of great dislike.  He was rebellious to authority and his immediate supervisors had to almost force him to do everything.  He was prone to try and get by with as little work as possible which required more supervision than usual.

9.  After consulting with defense counsel he waived all of his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

10.  The appropriate authority (a lieutenant general) approved the recommendation for discharge on 29 November 1968 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

11.  Accordingly, on 12 December 1968, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness with an undesirable discharge.  He had served 1 year, 4 months, and 12 days of active service and he had 366 days of lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement.

12.  On 18 February 1981 he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge to a general discharge.  His contentions were that that he was young and ignorant and he was having marital problems.  The ADRB rejected his contentions and voted to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge on 27 October 1981.

13.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect, at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members exhibiting habits and traits of character manifested by repeated commission of AWOL offenses or who were involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no violations or procedural errors, which would have jeopardized his rights.
2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted.  However, the offenses committed by the applicant were too numerous, too serious, and his overall record of service is too undistinguished for equitable relief to be appropriate.  His service simply does not rise to the level of a general discharge.

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)                                         AR20110014727



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110014727



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1