IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 June 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130016264 


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.

2.  The applicant states he was an alcoholic with no treatment.

3.  The applicant provides three letters. 

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's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 January 1977 and he held military occupational specialty 11E (Armor Crewman).  He was awarded or authorized the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Pistol Bar. 
3.  On 8 August 1977, at Fort Stewart, GA, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being found drunk while on duty.  

4.  On 20 April 1978, he again accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and being disrespectful to a superior commissioned officer.

5.  On 15 May 1978, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for one specification of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 23 to 24 April 1979 and five specifications of failing to obey a lawful order.

6.  On 14 June 1978, additional court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for:

* one specification of being found sleeping upon his post
* one specification of being found drunk upon his post
* two specifications of willfully disobeying orders

7.  On 20 June 1978, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of a request for discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were 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.  In his request for discharge he acknowledged that:

* he was making this request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person
* he did not desire any further rehabilitation under any circumstances and that he had no desire to perform further service
* 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 discharge under other honorable conditions
* he understood that if the discharge request was approved he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration
* he understood he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws
* he elected to submit a statement on his own behalf
8.  In his statement, he stated that he had had numerous problems with his chain of command and that his wife had been sick but no one would give him time off to take her to the hospital.  He added that he had had personality conflicts with his chain of command and he had no desire to be rehabilitated or to stay in the Army. 

9.  His intermediate and senior commanders recommended approval with the issuance of an under other than honorable discharge. 

10.  On 26 June 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for voluntary discharge for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by a court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  

11.  On 5 July 1978, the applicant was accordingly discharged.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation or Record of Service) he was issued at the time shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by a court-martial with an under other than honorable discharge.  This form further shows he completed 1 year, 5 months, and 19 days of active service during this period.

12.  He submits three post-service statements confirming his attendance at group and/or individual therapy related to substance abuse. 

13.  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. 

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, 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 undesirable discharge was considered appropriate at the time.

	a.  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.
	b.  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 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.  The applicant 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.  The applicant was not discharged for being drunk.  He was discharged because he elected to be discharged.  He had violated multiple Articles of the UCMJ including failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and disobeying orders.  His options were to face the court-martial which could have adjudged a bad conduct or a dishonorable discharge or request a voluntary discharge.  He chose the voluntary discharge.  Further, he could have referred himself for alcohol-abuse treatment.

3.  Based on the applicant's record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his service to either honorable or general.

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)                                         AR20130016264





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130016264



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1