IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 2 February 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110019280
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 he made a grave mistake and asks to be forgiven. He contends that he was young, but takes full responsibility for his actions. He was absent without leave (AWOL) because he was feeling stress over complications in his marriage.
3. The applicant provides no additional documentation.
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 applicants 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 applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. On 24 April 1969, the applicant, at 19 years and 9 months of age, was inducted into the Army of the United States. He completed basic combat training and was enrolled in advanced individual training for military occupational specialty (MOS) 63A (Vehicle Repairman). His MOS was to be awarded on
18 September 1969.
3. The applicant was AWOL from 4 September 1969 to 1 July 1971. Charges were subsequently preferred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for AWOL.
4. On 6 July 1971, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.
5. After consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and that he could receive an undesirable discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an undesirable discharge.
6. On 23 July 1971, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate). On 26 July 1971, the applicant was discharged accordingly. He had completed 4 months and 27 days of creditable active duty service and had 666 days of time lost.
7. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.
8. Under the UCMJ, the maximum punishment allowed for violation of Article 86, for AWOL of more than 30 days is a dishonorable discharge and confinement for 1 year.
9. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
a. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trail by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions 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 members service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldiers separation specifically allows such characterization.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends that his undesirable discharge should be upgraded because he was young and was feeling stress over complications in his marriage.
2. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. Based on his lengthy AWOL, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel. Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.
4. The applicant's contention that he was young at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The applicant was almost 20 years of age when he entered active duty. He successfully completed basic combat training and had almost completed advanced individual training when he decided to go AWOL. His satisfactory performance shows that he was neither too young nor immature to serve honorably.
5. In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be denied.
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) AR20110019280
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110019280
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012458
His DD Form 214 shows he had completed 6 months and 26 days of creditable active service and he had 505 days of lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008974
Following consult with legal counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. Therefore, he was requesting a discharge for the good of the service. On 31 January 1974 and 8 January 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined his discharge was both proper and appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000361C070208
The applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded from undesirable under other than honorable conditions to an honorable discharge for medical reasons. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant request that his discharge be upgraded from under other than honorable conditions to an honorable discharge for medical reasons.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021569
The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant was AWOL again from on or about 14 September 1971 to on or about 7 August 1974. The applicant contends that his undesirable discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge because he served in the RVN and he had a good service record before going AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004964C070205
On 26 March 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 14 April 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. However, his record of service also included four nonjudicial punishments, one special court-martial conviction, and 240 days of lost time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090233C070212
The applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 8 October 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. The applicant's record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 124 days of lost time and for that reason his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001823
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 23 April 1970, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for AWOL (7 days). On 22 August 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011619
There is no evidence indicating he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgraded of his discharge. Based on the seriousness of his misconduct, and in view of the fact that he voluntarily requested to be discharged in order to avoid a trial by court-martial that could have resulted in a punitive discharge, his overall record of service did not support the issuance of an honorable or general discharge by the separation authority at the time and it does not support an upgrade of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100615C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 7 June 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012179
Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. __________X________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of...