IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  12 June 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120006596 


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, his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  He states he suffered and embarrassed himself, his family, the military, and his Lord Savior Jesus Christ.  He also states that he had a desire to continue his service but he could not at that time handle prison by way of court-martial.  He felt he was young and could have been punished a different way.

3.  The applicant provides no documentary 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 28 March 1978 for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  

3.  He departed absent without leave (AWOL) while attending basic combat training (BCT) on 23 June 1978 and remained AWOL until he surrendered to military authorities on 11 January 1982. 

4.  On 5 May 1982, the unit commander notified the applicant that separation action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-23, by reason of misconduct.  The commander cited the applicant's continued unauthorized absence for a period of more than one year as the basis for the action.  

5.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effect.  He completed an election of rights in which he elected to waive consideration of his case by a board of officers and representation by counsel.  He also elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.

6.  On 7 June 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 14-23, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed he receive a UOTHC discharge.  On 9 July 1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

7.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued to the applicant upon his discharge shows he held the rank of private/E-1 on the date of his discharge and he completed a total of 8 months and 19 days of active military service with 1,298 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 provides the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel from the Army.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and being absent without leave.  

10.  Paragraph 14-3 of Army Regulation 635-200 contains guidance on characterization of service for members separated under chapter 14.  It states, in 

pertinent part, that a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  The separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record.  A characterization of honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so
meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be inappropriate.  

11.  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.

12.  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 argument his discharge should be upgraded to an HD because he suffered and was embarrassed by himself, his family, the military and his Lord Savior Jesus Christ was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support his claim.  

2.  The evidence confirmed he was discharged for misconduct for being AWOL for 1,298 days.

3.  The applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 

4.  By regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct.  It is clear his record of misconduct clearly diminished his overall record of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Therefore, it would not be appropriate to upgrade his discharge to either a GD or an HD.


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)                                         AR20120006596



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120006596



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1