IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120005990 


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.

2.  The applicant states:

* he believes he is entitled to some benefits even though he was only in the service for a short time
* he was having some problems at home and needed to get out of the service for some time

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 15 November 1976 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (food service specialist).

3.  He was absent without leave (AWOL) from 11 April to 17 June 1977.  Charges were preferred against the applicant for this AWOL period on 21 June 1977.

4.  On 23 June 1977, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  He acknowledged that by submitting his request for discharge he was guilty of a charge against him that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He indicated in his request he understood he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He acknowledged he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

5.  On 30 June 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

6.  On 13 July 1977, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He completed 5 months and 22 days of creditable active service with 67 days of lost time.

7.  There is no evidence that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  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.  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.

9.  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.

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 contends he should be entitled to some veterans' benefits even though he was only in the Army for a short time.  However, discharges are not changed for the purpose of making applicants eligible for benefits.

2.  He contends he was AWOL because he was having problems at home.  However, there is no evidence he sought assistance from his chain of command or chaplain in resolving his problems within established Army procedures prior to being AWOL.

3.  His brief record of service included 67 days of lost time.  As a result, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable or a general discharge.

4.  His voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he elected not to do so.

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were therefore appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.



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)                                         AR20120005990



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120005990



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1