IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  26 July 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120003599 


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.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he associated with the wrong people.

3.  The applicant provides 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.  The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 June 1975.  He successfully completed basic combat and advanced individual training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Field Artillery Crewman).  The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3. 

3.  A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 30 December 1976, shows the applicant was apprehended and confined by civil authorities in Lawton, Oklahoma and that he was subsequently released to his unit pending a court date.  Information surrounding the circumstances for apprehension is not available.

4.  On 24 March 1977, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to be at his appointed place of duty.

5.  A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 13 May 1977, shows court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the following offenses:

* on 17 April 1977, for being absent without authority from his unit
* between 26 March and 5 April 1977, nine counts of uttering worthless checks

6.  On 20 May 1977, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10.  The applicant indicated in his request that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions, that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA), and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He also acknowledged that he understood that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement on his behalf.

7.  On 14 June 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service under the provision of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200.  The DD Form 214 issued at the time indicates the applicant completed a total of 1 year, 10 months, and 20 days of active service with 31 days of lost time.

8.  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.
9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, 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.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

11.  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 contention that his discharge should be upgraded because he was associating with the wrong people at the time of his discharge was carefully considered and it was determined that it lacks sufficient evidence to support the contentions. 

2.  The applicant 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.  Discharges under this chapter are due to a voluntary request for discharge 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.

3.  Based on the applicant’s record of indiscipline his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  His conduct rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade to his 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)                                         AR20120003599



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120003599



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1