BOARD DATE:	  5 June 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130017359 


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:

* at the time of his separation, his spouse was in an accident and lost their child
* due to grief, he began drinking and [illegible word] lost mentally as well as physically
* his command did not offer any assistance through counseling, treatment, or just punishment
* he has worked through the grief and mistakes and he is trying to get right in his life

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge 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.  The applicant's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 March 1993 and he held military occupational specialty 51B (Carpentry and Masonry Specialist).  He was assigned to Fort Benning, GA.

3.  He was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar, and Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar. 

4.  On 6 September 1994, he departed his Fort Benning unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status and on 6 October 1994, he was dropped from the rolls as a deserter.  He was apprehended by civil authorities at Clinton, TN, for the civilian charges of failing to appear.  

5.  He was confined in Anderson County Jail, Clinton, TN, pending disposition of the charges.  He appeared before the civilian court on 30 March 1995 and after his sentence, he was returned to military control on that same date.  He was assigned to the Special Processing Company, Personnel Control Facility, Fort Knox, KY, for administrative processing. 

6.  On 4 April 1995, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification of AWOL from 6 September 1994 to 30 March 1995.  

7.  On 4 April 1995, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and 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 Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of a request for discharge, and of the procedures and rights 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.

8.  In his request for discharge he indicated he was making the request of his own free will and he had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person.  He also:

* indicated he did not desire any further rehabilitation under any circumstances because he had no desire to perform further service
* acknowledged he understood that by requesting discharge he was admitting guilt to the charge against him or to a lesser-included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or an under other honorable conditions discharge
* understood if his request for discharge was accepted, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions
* acknowledged he understood if his discharge request was approved he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits and he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs
* acknowledged he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws
* elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and declined a physical evaluation prior to separation

9.  On 18 April 1995, the immediate commander recommended approval of the request for discharge with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service.  He indicated the applicant's conduct rendered him triable by a court-martial under circumstances that could lead to a bad conduct or a dishonorable discharge.  Punishment can be expected to have minimal rehabilitative effect.  The discharge was in the best interests of all concerned.  

10.  On 5 May 1995, subsequent to a legal review for legal sufficiency and consistent with the applicant's chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by a court-martial.  He directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade (if applicable) and his service be characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  On 8 June 1995, the applicant was accordingly discharged.

11.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in the rank/grade of private/E-1 with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions.  This form further shows he completed 1 year, 7 months, and 14 days of creditable active service with 205 days of lost time.  

12.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-years statute of limitations.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It states:

	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 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 a 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.  Furthermore, his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

2.  There is no evidence in the applicant's records and he provides none to show he encountered family hardships or difficulties at the time or that he addressed such issues with the chain of command or other support channels at his installation.  

3.   Based on his record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory.  In view of the foregoing, there is no 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 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)                                         AR20130017359





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130017359



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1