IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  31 October 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130005027 


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 reconsideration of an earlier request to upgrade his discharge under other than honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  several paragraphs in his original Record of Proceedings (ROP) are incorrect;  

	b.  his original request for correction of his military records was between 2000 to 2003, not between 2005 and 2007;

	c.  the evidence for his cited reasons for a discharge upgrade can be provided by the U.S. Army, 8th Ordnance, at Fort Bragg, NC;

	d.  he disagrees that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.     

3.  The applicant provides a statement, dated 12 February 2013.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20110020877, on 3 April 2012.
2.  The applicant's arguments are new evidence that will be considered by the Board.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 April 1987 for a period of 
2 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (food service specialist). 

4.  He went absent without leave (AWOL) on 1 June 1988 and he returned to military control on 21 September 1988.  On 4 October 1988, charges were preferred against him for the AWOL period.

5.  On 4 October 1988, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 
10.  He acknowledged that by submitting his request for discharge he was guilty of a charge against him that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He indicated in his request he understood he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and given an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He acknowledged he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he was issued such a discharge.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf. 

6.  On 7 October 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

7.  On 18 November 1988, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 
10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He completed a total of 
1 year, 3 months, and 19 days of creditable active service with 
113 days of lost time.  

8.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

9.  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 contends his original request for correction of his military records was between 2000 and 2003, not 2005 and 2007.  However, there is no evidence of record and he has provided no evidence which shows he petitioned the ABCMR or ADRB during the period 2000 and 2003.

2.  He points out the evidence for his cited reasons for a discharge upgrade (in his original ROP) can be provided by the U.S. Army, 8th Ordnance, at Fort Bragg, NC.  However, the ABCMR is not an investigative body.  It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide supporting documentation.

3.  His voluntary request for separation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 
10, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement wherein he could have voiced his concerns; however, he elected not to do so.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were therefore appropriate considering all the facts of the case.


5.  His record of service included a 113-day AWOL period.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20110020877, dated 3 April 2012.



      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20130005027



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130005027



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1