IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    26 April 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110021963 


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, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states that his discharge was not unjust but he desires it to be upgraded.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his Discharge Certificate and a Certificate of Achievement.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 July 1979 for a period of 3 years, training as a materiel supply specialist, and assignment to Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  He completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and advanced individual training at Fort Lee, Virginia and he returned to Fort Sill for his first duty assignment.

3.  On 24 May 1981, he was transferred to Korea and assigned to the 2d Infantry Division.

4. On 23 November 1981, charges were preferred against the applicant for wrongful use of marijuana and wrongful possession of 3,400 grams more or less of marijuana. 

5.  On 27 January 1982, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel).  He indicated he was making the request of his own free will without coercion from anyone and he was aware of the implications attached to his request.  He also admitted he was guilty of the charges against him or of lesser-included offenses which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He acknowledged he understood he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and he might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge.  He also elected to submit a statement in his own behalf whereas he admitted that he was guilty and he understood that there was no automatic review or upgrade of his discharge and that he believed a discharge was in the best interest of both the Army and himself.  

6.  On 16 March 1982, the appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request for discharge and directed that he be issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

7.  On 24 March 1982, he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 
635-200, with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  He completed 2 years, 8 months, and 20 days of active service. 

8.  There is no evidence in the available records to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's     15-year statute of limitations.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 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 charges have been preferred.  A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against him or her or of lesser-included offenses which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and he or she must indicate he or she has been briefed and understands the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge he or she might receive.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

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's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service to avoid a trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate under the circumstances.

2.  After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence before a trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his record.  In doing so he admitted guilt to the charges against him.

3.  The applicant's request has been noted.  However, his service was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief under the circumstances, especially given the serious nature of his misconduct.  His service simply did not rise to the level of an honorable or a general 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)                                         AR20110021963



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110021963



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1