IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 April 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110021052 


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 his discharge be upgraded to general under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states:
* He was young at the time of volunteering
* Lacked counseling upon release

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation 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.  The applicant's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 September 1976 at the age of 18.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76P (Stock Control Supplyman).  The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-1.

3.  The available records indicate the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on four occasions:

* On 6 January 1977, for being absent without authority from his unit
* On 8 February 1977, for failing to be at the appointed place of duty
* On 28 February 1977, for disrespect to a superior noncommissioned officer
* On 4 May 1977, for being absent without authority from his unit 

4.  On 18 October 1977, charges were preferred against the applicant for being Absent Without Leave (AWOL).

5.  On 26 October 1977, the applicant consulted counsel and  submitted a voluntary request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10.  The applicant was advised of the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of an under conditions other than honorable discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  

6.  In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.

7.  The applicant provided a one-page letter at the time of his request, which essentially states he requests a chapter 10 discharge.

8.  On 9 December 1977, the discharge authority approved the applicant's request and directed discharge with an undesirable discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 15 December 1977 with an under conditions other than honorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10.

9.  The applicant's DD Form 214 reflects he completed 9 months and 18 days of creditable active military service with 205 days lost due to being AWOL.
10.  There is no evidence to show applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). 

11.  The applicant states that he is responsible for his mistakes.  He wants to be 100 percent an American citizen and a proud member of the US Armed Forces.  He states that immaturity and lack of adult guidance or legal counsel should be sufficient to upgrade his discharge.  

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provides 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 at any time after the charges have been preferred.  At the time, a discharge under conditions other than honorable was normally considered appropriate.

13.  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.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s argument that his discharge should be upgraded because he was young at the time of enlistment was carefully considered and it was determined there is insufficient evidence to support this request.

2.  Records show that the applicant was 19 years of age at the time of his offenses.  However, there is no evidence that indicates that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

3.  The applicant was discharged under the provisions of chap 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

4.  Based on his record of indiscipline, which includes 205 days lost due to being AWOL, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to either a general or honorable 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)                                         AR20110021052





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110021052



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1