IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  5 April 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110020309 


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 an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he is requesting this upgrade because he is now older and more responsible.  His father, who retired from the Army, taught him that it was wonderful to serve your country.  At a very young age the applicant's goal was to grow up and join the Army.  As a young man, he joined the Army; however, soon afterward his father had a heart attack.  The applicant asked to be sent home but was denied.  The applicant felt it was very important for him to be by his father's side.  Even though his superior told him no, he went home.  He knows this was wrong.  It was irresponsible.  He regrets that decision.  He hopes this explanation will help the Board to better understand why he made the choice to go home.  Now, as an older man, he regrets having a discharge UOTHC on his record.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

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.  On 10 April 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army at the age of 20 years and 4 months.  He completed basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

3.  In June 1984, the applicant was ordered to Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland.  In October 1984, he was further ordered to Fort Stewart, Georgia.

4.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows:

* 17 November to 10 December 1984 – absent without leave (AWOL)
* 11 December 1984 – returned to military control at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri
* 17 December 1984 to 2 January 1985 – duty at Fort Stewart, Georgia
* 3 to 8 January 1985 – AWOL
* 9 January 1985 – returned to military control at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri
* 19 January to 12 February 1985 – AWOL
* 13 February 1985 – returned to military control at Fort Knox, Kentucky

5.  On 28 February 1985, charges were preferred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for violation of Article 86 for the following three periods of AWOL (on or about):

* 17 November to 11 December 1984
* 3 to 9 January 1985
* 19 January to 13 February 1985

6.  The discharge packet is missing from his military records.  However, his DD Form 214 shows he was administratively discharged for the good of the service on 9 April 1985 under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10,.  His service was characterized as UOTHC.  He completed 10 months and 6 days of creditable active duty service and had 54 days of lost time due to AWOL.

7.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons.

	a.  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.

	b.  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.

9.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) paragraph 2-9, provides that the Board begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his discharge UOTHC should be upgraded because he was young at the time but is now older and more responsible.

2.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The applicant was 20 years of age and had satisfactorily completed basic combat training.  His satisfactory performance demonstrated his capacity to serve and showed he was neither too young nor immature.

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.


4.  The applicant’s claim of now being more responsible is noted.  However, it does not sufficiently mitigate his repeated acts of indiscipline during his military service.

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 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)                                         AR20110020309



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110020309



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1