IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	   7 January 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130008496 


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 to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

* his prior military record shows that he had honorable service until 12 July 1990, when he went absent without leave (AWOL)
* as such, his character of service should be changed to honorable
* since his separation, he has led an exemplary life
* he has graduated from college and he is an ordained minister
* he is in the process of starting a ministry
* prior to his discharge, he had only one negative incident that directly led to the type of discharge he received
* he has had no trouble with any agency of authority, to include law enforcement
* he believes that his life, both prior to and after, merits a review resulting in an upgrade of his discharge to honorable
* his life to date is, has been, and will continue to be honorable in nature
* he had only one negative incident, at the age of 21

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 27 April 2013
* Universal Life Church – Credentials of Ministry
* Universal Life Church – Clergy Certification
* Liberty University Bachelor of Science Degree
* DD Form 214, dated 17 January 1991

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 (RA) on 25 August 1987.  He completed training as an armor crewman.  He reenlisted in the RA on 14 June 1990.

3.  The applicant went AWOL on 12 July 1990.  He remained absent until he surrendered to civilian authorities on 21 October 1990 and was returned to military control. 

4.  On 30 October 1990, the applicant was notified that charges were pending against him for being AWOL.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification.  After consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged he understood:

* if his request for discharge were accepted, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions
* he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits as a result of the issuance of such a discharge
* he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
* he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws
* he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of a discharge under other than honorable conditions

5.  On 30 November 1990, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request and directed the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

6.  On 17 January 1991, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He completed 3 years and 28 days of net active service this period.

7.  The available evidence does not show the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's         15-year statute of limitations.

8.  The applicant submits his credential showing that his is now an ordained minister and that he has received his Bachelor of Science Degree.

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's contentions have been noted.  His supporting evidence has been considered.

2.  Based on the evidence he provided, his post-service conduct has been exemplary, which is commendable.  However, he was AWOL for over 3 months. He voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His post-service conduct is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.

3.  The applicant's period of AWOL rendered his service unsatisfactory.  He has not shown error or injustice in the type of discharge he received.  He was discharged in accordance with the applicable regulation and the type of discharge he received appropriately characterizes his overall record of service. Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20130008496



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130008496



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1