IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  21 February 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110016402 


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 upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states:

* He wants his discharge upgraded so he can get employment with the Government
* His wife wrote bad checks and his commander requested she return stateside
* His wife had nowhere to go so he went absent without leave (AWOL) with the intent to return to his unit
* He got a job and started his life over
* He is divorced
* He tried to reenlist but was turned down
* He was young

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 was born on 14 March 1961.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 March 1979 for a period of 3 years and 6 months.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76C (equipment records and parts specialist).

3.  On 2 June 1981, he went AWOL and returned to military control on 
26 February 1984.  He went AWOL again on 8 March 1984 and returned to military control on 17 November 1985.  On 4 December 1985, charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL periods.

4.  On 4 December 1985, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he understood he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished an other than honorable conditions discharge, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He acknowledged he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

5.  On 16 December 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

6.  He was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 16 January 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He completed 2 years, 4 months, and 29 days of creditable active service with 1618 days of lost time.

7.  On 16 September 1992, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an honorable discharge.



8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

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 contends he wants his discharge upgraded so he can get a Government job.  However, a discharge is not changed for the purpose of enhancing employment opportunities.

2.  He contends he was young.  However, age is not a mitigating factor.  He was 18 years old when he enlisted and he completed his training.  In addition, he completed over 2 years of service prior to going AWOL the first time. 

3.  His record of service included two lengthy AWOL periods for 1618 days.  As a result, his record of service 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 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he elected not to do so.
5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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)                                         AR20110016402





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110016402



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1