IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  28 August 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120004232 


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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). 

2.  The applicant states his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) should reflect his service in Germany in item 12f (Foreign Service).  

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his request.  

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 August 1980, and was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11H (Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons Crewman).  

3.  The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he served in Germany from 28 November 1980 through 2 July 1981.  

4.  The record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  It does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being AWOL from 7 to 14 January 1981.  

5.  On 3 July 1981, the applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit in Germany.  He was dropped from the rolls (DFR) of his organization on
2 August 1981, and he remained absent for 207 days until returning to military control at Fort Carson, Colorado on 26 January 1982.  

6.  On 3 February 1982, a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was prepared preferring a court-martial charge against the applicant for violating Article 86 of the UCMJ by being AWOL from on or about 3 July 1981 to on or about 26 January 1982. 

7.  On 4 February 1982, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and after being advised of the basis of the contemplated trial by court-martial and the maximum permissible punishment under the UCMJ, of the possible effects of a discharge UOTHC, and of the rights and procedures available to him, he voluntarily 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.

8.  In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged that by submitting the request for discharge he was admitting he was guilty of the charge against him or of a lesser-included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He also confirmed his understanding that if his request for discharge were approved, he could receive a UOTHC discharge.  He further stated he understood that receipt of an under other than honorable conditions discharge could result in his being deprived of many or all Army benefits, his possible ineligibility for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under State and Federal laws.  

9.  On 11 February 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed he be issued a UOTHC discharge.  On         17 March 1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  
10.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his discharge shows he completed 1 year and 8 days of creditable active service with 214 days of time lost due to AWOL.  It also shows he was awarded the Army Service Ribbon and Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle and Hand Grenade Bars.  

11.  There is no indication the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's
15-year statute of limitations.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  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.  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.

	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 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.

	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.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request to upgrade his discharge has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. 

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  It also shows that after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily 
requested discharge for the good of the service 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.  

3.  The evidence of record further confirms the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in a punitive discharge.  It further shows that in his request for discharge, he admitted guilt to an offense that authorized the imposition of a punitive discharge.  Given the voluntary nature of his discharge request and his undistinguished overall record of service, the UOTHC discharge he received accurately reflects the overall qualify of his service which did not support the issue of an HD or GD by the separation authority at the time of his discharge and does not now support an upgrade of his discharge.  

4.  Evidence shows that the applicant’s records contain an administrative error which does not require action by the Board.  Therefore, administrative correction of the applicant’s records will be accomplished by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Case Management Division (CMD) as outlined by the Board in paragraph 2 of the BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X___  ___X____  ____X___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  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.

2.  The Board determined that an administrative error in the records of the individual concerned should be corrected.  Therefore, the Board requests that the 


ARBA CMD administratively correct the records of the individual concerned by amending item 12f of his DD Form 214 by deleting the current entry and replacing it with the entry “0000  07  00.”



      _______ _   __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)                                         AR20120004232



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120004232



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1