BOARD DATE:	  14 November 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130004580 


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 to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was discharged from the Army in 1990.  At no time did he contest his failure to perform at the highest level.  However, it has been over 20 years since this incident and he feels that he has paid the price for his failure and he has learned from his lesson.  His service to his country, prior to this incident, was exemplary. 

3.  The applicant provides:

* Separation packet
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214)
* Honorable Discharge Certificate

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 3 January 1986 and he reenlisted on 14 December 1988.  He held military occupational specialties 97E (Interrogator) and 71L (Administrative Specialist) and the rank/grade of sergeant/E-5.  

3.  He served in Germany from 5 July 1989 to 22 March 1990.  He was awarded or authorized the Army Achievement Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Army of Occupation Medal (Berlin), Good Conduct Medal, and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar. 

4.  On 27 February 1990, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for one specification of wrongfully using cocaine. 

5.  On 1 March 1990, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or a dishonorable discharge, the possible effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions if his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial were approved, and of the procedures and rights 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.

6.  In his request for discharge, he indicated:

* he was making this request of his own free will and he had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person
* 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 dishonorable discharge 
* he acknowledged he understood if his discharge request was approved he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits and he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs
* he acknowledged he understood he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws
* he stated that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation and he had no desire to perform further military service
* he elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf

7.  On 6 March 1990, his commander strongly recommended approval of the discharge action.  The commander stated that the applicant's performance had been phenomenal, his demeanor and Soldierly bearing had been outstanding, and his dedication was exemplary.  

8.  On 13 March 1990, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.  

9.  The applicant was discharged on 23 March 1990.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  This form shows he completed 4 years, 2 months, and 21 days of creditable active service.

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

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

	a.  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.

	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.  The applicant's record shows he 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.  He 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.

2.  Although the commander commended the applicant's phenomenal performance, outstanding demeanor and Soldierly bearing, and exemplary dedication, the fact remains that as a noncommissioned officer, he violated the trust and confidence the Army placed in him.  When his chain command preferred court-martial charges against him, he exercised his right to consult with counsel.  His options were to face the court-martial that could have adjudged a dishonorable or a bad conduct discharge or submit a voluntary request for discharge.  He voluntarily chose the discharge.  Those were choices that he made.  

3.  Although it has been over 20 years since his discharge, the Army does not have nor did it ever have a policy wherein a characterization of service is upgraded due to the passage of time.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant 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)                                         AR20130004580



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130004580



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1