BOARD DATE:	  18 February 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130009806 


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 (UOTHC) to an honorable discharge and correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show award of the Army Achievement Medal.

2.  The applicant states he served 4+ years, including an overseas tour, and was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal and Army Achievement Medal.  After reenlisting, his mother was involved in an automobile accident and he was denied leave because her condition was not life threatening and his unit was preparing for a 45-day field exercise.  He refused to train and was absent without leave (AWOL) resulting in his discharge.

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 Regular Army on 4 April 1984, completed training, and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11M (Fighting Vehicle Infantryman).

3.  He was advanced to specialist four/E-4 on 1 April 1986.  He immediately reenlisted on 3 November 1986.  He was awarded MOS 52C (Utilities Equipment Repairer) on 25 March 1987.

4.  He was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal on 13 February 1987.

5.  On 1 February 1988, he was reported as AWOL and remained absent until 1135 hours on 6 May 1988.

6.  On 17 May 1988 after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal 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 – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  He acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges or lesser-included charges and that if the request were accepted he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and be furnished a UOTHC Discharge Certificate.  He acknowledged that such a discharge would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran and that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a discharge UOTHC.  He submitted a personal statement describing the occurrence that led to his AWOL and requesting a general discharge.  Submitted with his statement were statements from his family attorney and his family with pictures of his mother following her accident.

7.  The separation authority approved the request for discharge and directed the applicant's reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and discharge UOTHC.

8.  The applicant was discharged UOTHC on 23 September 1988.  He completed 4 years, 2 months, and 15 days of creditable service with 95 days of lost time and 109 days of excess leave.  His awards are shown as the Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Army Good Conduct Medal, and Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle and Hand Grenade Bars.

9.  The available records contain no evidence of award of the Army Achievement Medal.

10.  There is no indication the applicant applied for review of his discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statutory limit.

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

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge.

	c.  Paragraph 3-7c provides that a discharge UOTHC is issued when there is one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from conduct expected of a Soldier.

	d.  Paragraph 3-7c(7) specifically addresses issuance of a discharge UOTHC under the provisions of chapter 10.

	e.  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 the charges have been preferred.  A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the offense for which he requested discharge and is appropriate for the applicant's overall record of military service during his second term of enlistment.

2.  The applicant has not provided and the record does not contain any evidence of an award of the Army Achievement Medal.

3.  While the applicant did have approximately 4 years of honorable service and was awarded an Army Good Conduct Medal, his command believed that his 95 days of AWOL out weighed these factors and did not merit a general discharge.

4.  The applicant has not presented any evidence or argument that was not of record at the time of his separation and his service does not show it to have been so meritorious as to warrant an upgrade of his discharge at this time.

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)                                         AR20130009806



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130009806



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1