IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    27 November 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120009815 


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 under other than honorable conditions discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

* He had 95 days of lost time due to being absent without leave (AWOL)
* He was reprimanded for his actions and then “obligated” and threatened to get himself discharged 
* He went along with what he was told due to fear and confusion
* The actions were prompted by a master sergeant who wanted him discharged under dishonorable conditions
* It has now been 35 years since his discharge and he finds it unfair
* When employers look at his discharge document they do so in disgrace

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation 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 enlisted in the Regular Army for a 3-year term on 9 November 1976.  He was assigned to Fort Dix, NJ, for training. 

3.  On 3 January 1977, he departed his training unit in an AWOL status and on 1 February 1977, he was dropped from the Army rolls as a deserter.  He was apprehended and returned to military control on 7 April 1977.

4.  Subsequent to his return, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification of being AWOL from 3 January to 7 April 1977.  

5.  On 20 April 1977, he consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of a request for discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Following consultation with legal counsel, he 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.   In his request for discharge he indicated that:

* he was making this request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person
* he did not desire any further rehabilitation under any circumstances because he had no desire to perform further service
* he acknowledged he understood that by requesting discharge he was admitting guilt to the charges against him or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions
* he acknowledged he understood that if the discharge request was approved he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration
* he acknowledged he understood he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law
* he elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf

6.  On 22 April 1977, his intermediate commander recommended approval of the discharge with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

7.  On 27 April 1977, consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for voluntary discharge for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by a court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.  

8.  On 3 May 1977, the applicant was accordingly discharged.  The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by a court-martial with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions.  This form further confirms he completed 2 months and 20 days of active service and he had 95 days of lost time.

9.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  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, an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate.

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 request that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request.

2.  The applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant voluntarily, willingly, and in writing requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

3.  With respect to his arguments:

	a.  The Army does not now have or ever had a policy wherein a discharge is upgraded due to passage of time. 

	b.  Nothing in the applicant's record supports his contention that he was forced to choose the discharge.  He went AWOL by choice.  When presented with his options, he willingly chose the discharge.  He could have elected trial by a court-martial if he felt he was being coerced or threatened as he contends.  

	c.  The fact that employers look at his discharge with disdain appears to be a natural consequence of his actions.  

4.  Based on his record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to either 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)                                         AR20120009815





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120009815



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1