IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  18 June 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120021352 


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 upgrade of his discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

* he enlisted and served in an airborne status during his initial term of service
* he reenlisted into the 118th Military Police Company in 1974
* something happened in North Carolina to change his feelings towards the military
* in August 1975, an African-American woman escaped from jail after killing the Caucasian deputy sheriff who attempted to rape her
* she surrendered to authorities, citing self-defense, and was put on trial 
* racial tension increased and he requested a transfer which was denied
* being young, he did not know what to do so he deliberately and repeatedly went absent without leave (AWOL)
* he received an under other than honorable conditions discharge, which resulted in him being denied medical services
* he feels he is owed grace because the Army did not support him by giving him a transfer
* he did not realize the consequences of his actions

3.  The applicant provides a five-page self-authored statement and an electronic magazine article.



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 was born on 20 January 1953 and enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 26 May 1971 at the age of 18 years, 4 months, and 6 days.  After serving for 2 years, 10 months, and 12 days, he was honorably discharged on 
8 April 1974 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.

3.  On 9 April 1974, he reenlisted in the RA at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

4.  The applicant's record includes his disciplinary history which shows his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for the following offenses:

* being AWOL during the period 10 June 1975 to 12 June 1975
* failure to obey a lawful order on 12 June 1975
* failure to obey two lawful orders on 23 October 1975 

5.  His record also shows he was charged with two specifications of violation of the UCMJ, Article 91 by disobeying lawful orders from a superior noncommissioned officer.

6.  On 10 November 1975, the applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial and the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, of the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights available to him.  Having been so advised, he voluntarily submitted a request for 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.


7.  The applicant acknowledged:
	a.  he was making the request of his own free will and he had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person;

	b.  he had been advised of the implications that were attached to his request and that by submitting his request he also acknowledged he was guilty of the charges against him or of a lesser-included offense that also provided for the imposition of a bad conduct or a dishonorable discharge;

	c.  he did not desire further rehabilitation or desire to continue in the military; 

	d.  he understood if his request was accepted he could be issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, he understood the effects of such a discharge, and he understood that as a result of the issuance of such a discharge, he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits including all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA);

	e.  he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he was issued an undesirable discharge;

	f.  he understood that once his request for discharge was submitted, it could only be withdrawn with the consent of the commander who exercised court-martial authority; and

	g.  he could submit a statement on his own behalf, which he did, indicating he no longer wished to remain on active duty for personal and financial reasons.

8.  On 24 November 1975, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

9.  On 9 December 1975, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He completed 1 year, 7 months, and 27 days of active service during this enlistment with 4 days of time lost.  His character of service was under other than honorable conditions.

10.  On 9 July 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

11.  He submitted a four-page electronic magazine article titled A Look Back at the Joann Little Case, published 9 March 2006, that talks about the violation of civil rights of women, specifically African-America women in the southern United States.  This article stated that the subject woman fled her jail cell in Beaufort, NC, in August 1975 after killing the white deputy sheriff who had attempted to rape her.  

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

	a.  Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred,.  Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the 
good of the service.  Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  An undesirable discharge certificate would normally be furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service.

	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.  Evidence shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid a trial by court-martial.  He acknowledged he understood he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  There is no indication his request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  His record shows he was 18 years of age at the time of his enlistment and he was 22 years of age at the time of his offenses.  However, there is no evidence that indicates that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

3.  There is no evidence of record nor did he submit any evidence that shows he had racial problems, reported or sought help to his chain of command.  In addition, the magazine article he provided indicated the racially-intense incident that he implies was the impetus for his going AWOL began in August 1975.  The applicant went AWOL in June 1975, two months before the incident. 

4.  His record shows he accepted NJP, was AWOL twice, and had a total of 4 days of time lost.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant an honorable or a general discharge for the period of service ending 9 December 1975.

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)                                         AR20120021352





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120021352



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1