IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE:	    18 December 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120010734 


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 that his discharge was unjust because he was the victim and was forced to take the discharge he received.  He states he was young and this discharge separates him from the duties he performed as a serviceman.  He contends that he was a great asset to the Army and was faithful.

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 U.S. Army Reserve on 30 December 1981.  He was ordered to initial active duty for training on 8 January 1982.  He was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey, to undergo basic training and then to Fort Gordon, Georgia, to undergo advanced individual training as a telecommunications center operator.

3.  On 28 July 1982, charges were preferred against the applicant for three specifications of stealing money from three Soldiers in training.

4.  On 16 August 1982 after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant 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.  He indicated he was making the request of his own free will without coercion from anyone and he was aware of the implications attached to his request.  He also admitted he was guilty of the charges against him or of lesser-included offenses which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He acknowledged he understood he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and he might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

5.  The appropriate authority approved his request on 20 August 1982 and directed his discharge under other than honorable conditions.

6.  Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 27 August 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He completed 7 months and 20 days of active service.

7.  There is no evidence in the available records to show he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 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 at any time after charges have been preferred.  A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against him or her or of a lesser-included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and he or she must indicate he or she has been briefed and understands the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge he or she might receive.  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's voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate under the circumstances.

2.  After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence before a trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his record.  In doing so he admitted guilt to the charges against him.

3.  The applicant's contentions have been noted and are found to lack merit.  The evidence of record clearly shows he was represented by defense counsel and that all of his rights were explained to him.  Accordingly, his contentions are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief under the circumstances, especially given the seriousness of his offenses and his short period of service.  His service simply did not rise to the level of honorable or under honorable conditions.

4.  Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to grant his request for an upgrade of 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 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)                                         AR20120010734



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120010734



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1