IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    26 April 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110018010 


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 reconsideration of his previous application for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general discharge (GD).  He now requests an upgrade to an honorable discharge (HD) and restoration of his rank/grade to private first class (PFC)/E-3.

2.  He states he has new evidence in the form of Leave and Earnings Statements.  While serving in California, he was sending money home to his parents.  His father had been in a serious vehicle accident that left him disabled and led to serious financial difficulties.  When he left California, he went on leave for 5 days and then went to Kansas for infantry training.  While in Kansas, he had to stop sending money to his parents because he did not get paid for almost 
3 months.  His chain of command did not help him.  His parents sent him money for a bus ticket so that he could come home after he told the military several times about his pay problems.  He states he went home to help his family; he did not go absent without leave (AWOL).  He should have been given a hardship discharge, but he did not know that was an option at the time.  Had he been paid on a regular basis he would not have gone home to support his family.

3.  He provides two supporting statements, Military Pay Vouchers, Leave and Earnings Statements, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), and a copy of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings for his previous case.



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20100021684, on 15 February 2011.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 January 1972.  After completing initial entry training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).

3.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in item 33 (Appointments and Reductions) he was advanced to PFC/E-3 on 21 July 1972, which was the highest grade he held.  He was reduced to private/E-2 on 2 August 1972 and to private/E-1 on 17 October 1972.   

4.  A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 5 October 1972, shows he was charged with being AWOL from 1 August to 11 September 1972.   

5.  On 10 October 1972, he was advised by counsel of the basis for a contemplated trial by court-martial and the maximum punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the possible effects of a UD, and the rights available to him.  

6.  After consulting with counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  In his voluntary request for discharge, he indicated he understood that if his request was accepted he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He further acknowledged he understood that as a result of the issuance of such a discharge he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws, and he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.

7.  In a statement provided with his request for discharge he stated he would go AWOL again if his request for discharge was denied.  He also stated there was no way he could handle the Army.

8.  On 17 October 1972, the separation authority approved his request and directed he receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 31 October 1972, he was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 shows he completed 7 months and 17 days of total active service with time lost from 1 August to 10 September 1972 and from 22 to 31 October 1972, a total of 51 days.  

9.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  He provides Military Pay Vouchers and Leave and Earnings Statements showing the following:

Pay Period
Total Payments
Amount Carried Forward
24 January –29 February
217.00
     .89
1-31 March
--
--
1 -30 April
449.00
      .54
1-31 May
--
239.96
1-30 June
--
468.08
1-31 July
--
336.25
1-31 August
--
289.03
1-30 September
100.00
141.54
1-31 October
358.74
--
11.  He provides a statement from his sister.  She states she observed his financial hardship during his Army training.  Their father insisted on sending him money, which devastated him because he knew his father was having financial problems after an accident left him disabled for a long time.  

12.  He provides a statement from a Mr. K.K. who states he has known the applicant 15 years and claims to be an advisor on military benefits and claims.  He summarizes the information on the Military Pay Vouchers and Leave and Earnings Statements provided by the applicant.  He states the applicant should have been given a hardship discharge in order to help his family.  He also states that based on the new information provided the applicant should be given an HD and his rank should be restored to PFC/E-3.

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

   a.  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(s) charged, type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  At the time the applicant was discharged a UD was normally considered appropriate for an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.  Discharges under this chapter required reduction to the lowest enlisted pay grade.
   
   b.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an HD 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 GD 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 pay records provided by the applicant confirm that he was not paid during May, June, July, and August 1972, a period of 4 consecutive months.  Because he was AWOL, he was not in a payable status in August 1972.  The available records do not show why he was not paid in May, June, or July 1972.  

2.  He states he went AWOL because he had not been paid for 3 months and did not receive any assistance from his chain of command; however, there is no evidence showing he presented his pay issues as mitigating circumstances during his discharge processing.  In fact, when he exercised his right to submit a statement with his request for discharge he simply stated that if his request was denied he would go AWOL again and that there was no way he could handle the Army.  If not being paid was the primary problem that caused him to go AWOL it would have been in his best interest to raise the issue at that time.  Instead, he made a statement indicating he had no intention of fulfilling his service obligation.

3.  Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  When his request was approved, he was reduced to the lowest enlisted pay grade as required by regulation.

4.  He voluntarily requested discharge after being charged with being AWOL for more than a month.  Based on this record of indiscipline his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to a GD or an HD or restoration of his rank to PFC/E-3.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20100021684, dated 15 February 2011.



      __________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)                                         AR20110018010



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110018010



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1