IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  24 June 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130017274 


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 undesirable discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  He was having personal issues at home that led to alcoholism at the time he was absent without leave (AWOL) which affected his good judgment.

	b.  He has since rehabilitated himself and needs the assistance of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to receive any available benefits.

	c.  He has worked as a security officer for over 10 years.

3.  The applicant provides:

* Honorable Discharge Certificate
* Bureau of Security and Investigative Services Guard Registration

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 was inducted into the Army of the United States on 16 July 1969.  He served as an engine and powertrain repairman in Alaska and he was honorably discharged on 10 June 1971 for immediate enlistment.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 June 1971 for a period of 6 years.

3.  On 31 August 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being AWOL from 23 to 31 August 1971.

4.  On 26 July 1972, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 1 September 1971 to 13 June 1972.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months, forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for 4 months, and reduction to pay grade E-1.  On 28 July 1972, the convening authority approved the sentence.

5.  Between November 1972 and September 1974, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him on three occasions for:

* failing to repair (two specifications)
* being AWOL from 1 to 6 May 1974
* being AWOL for 9 hours on 23 August 1974

6.  He was again AWOL on 18 October 1974 and he returned to military control on 3 December 1975.  On 4 December 1975, charges were preferred against him for this AWOL period.

7.  On 11 December 1975 after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a 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 indicated he understood he could be discharged under conditions other than honorable and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA, and he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He also acknowledged he understood he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge.  He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In summary, he stated:

	a.  He is requesting discharge for the good of the service because he thought it was great when he first came in the Army, but now he knows he cannot make a life of military service.

	b.  He thinks the Army is a waste of time and money.

	c.  If he returned to duty, he would be a problem for his next unit and would probably take off again.

	d.  He understood that he would lose all his benefits and what an undesirable discharge was.

8.  On 2 January 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

9.  On 16 January 1976, he was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He completed 4 years, 6 months, and 24 days of total active service with 702 days of lost time.

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

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

	a.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who 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 at any time after court-martial charges are preferred.  Commanders will ensure that an individual is not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service.  Consulting counsel will advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate was normally furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service at that time.

	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 he was AWOL due to personal issues at home.  However, there is no evidence he sought assistance from his chain of command or chaplain in resolving his problems within established Army procedures prior to being AWOL.

2.  He contends he has rehabilitated himself and needs the assistance of the VA to receive any benefits available.  However, a discharge is not changed solely for the purpose of qualifying an applicant for veterans' benefits.

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

4.  His record of service during his last enlistment included four nonjudicial punishments, one special court-martial conviction, and 702 days of lost time.  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.

5.  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 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)                                         AR20130017274



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130017274



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1