BOARD DATE:	  22 April 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130013412 


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.

2.  The applicant states he doesn't believe he deserved a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He was young, immature, and didn't know what he wanted to do with his life.  He now knows he should not have enlisted just to get away from home.  He should have been offered some kind of counseling rather than just being discharged.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty).

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.  On 31 January 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army at approximately 17 years and 6 months of age.

3.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and was awarded a military occupational specialty as a unit armorer/supply specialist.

4.  Notwithstanding nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for sleeping on guard duty, he was advanced to pay grade E-2 on 31 May 1974.

5.  On 2 August 1974, the applicant received NJP again, for being absent without leave (AWOL) for 6 days.

6.  The applicant was again AWOL on 26 and 27 August 1974 and from 3 to 30 September 1974.

7.  When charges for these periods of AWOL were preferred, the applicant consulted with legal counsel.  He voluntarily 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 stated he understood the charges against him and admitted he was guilty of at least one offense for which a punitive discharge was authorized.  He acknowledged he understood he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He indicated he understood he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits and he might be ineligible for veterans' benefits administered by the Veterans Administration.  He also acknowledged he understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he were issued an undesirable discharge.

8.  He submitted a brief handwritten statement to the effect that he couldn't cope with Army life or stand to be told what to do.  The sooner he got out the better.

9.  The chain of command recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge.  The separation authority approved the request and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

10.  The applicant was AWOL again and wasn't discharged until 7 March 1975.  He was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  He completed 8 months and 20 days of creditable active duty service and accrued approximately 138 days of lost time.

11.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  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, an under other than honorable conditions discharge 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.  There is no available evidence showing the applicant was any more immature than other recruits.  Furthermore, he was qualified for enlistment and demonstrated the capacity for honorable service by completing initial entry training which is generally viewed as being one of the most difficult phases of military service.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant has submitted no evidence or convincing argument in support of his contentions.  There is no basis for upgrading his 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 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)                                         AR20130013412



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130013412



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1