IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  12 August 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130021721 


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 stressed out and needed a break.  He went absent without leave (AWOL) and when he did so, he had a lot of things on his mind such as women, alcohol, and a few drugs.  He also had a lot of family trouble.  Everybody makes mistakes and his was the worst.  He still looks back and believes things would have been better if he had manned up and taken his punishment. 

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge). 

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 Army National Guard (ARNG) on 8 March 1972.  He entered active duty for training (ACDUTRA) on 8 June 1972.  

3.  He completed training requirements and he was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  He was honorably released from ACDUTRA on 14 October 1972.  

4.  He was honorably discharged from the ARNG on 24 May 1973 for the purpose of enlisting in the Regular Army.  

5.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 May 1973.  He was assigned to the   1st Battalion, 28th Infantry, Fort Riley, KS. 

6.  The complete facts and circumstances, including the court-martial charge sheet and separation packet, are not available for review with this case.  However, his records contain:

	a.  Special Orders Number 150, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Field Artillery Center, Fort Sill, OK, on 30 May 1974 reducing him to the lowest enlisted grade by reason of having received an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10.

	b.  A DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial on 3 June 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and issued a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate).  He completed 7 months and 13 days of active military service during the period under review and he had 149 days of lost time.  

7.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

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

	a.  Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred.  Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service.  Consulting counsel would 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 Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

	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's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge action.  It appears that he was charged with the commission of offense(s) punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 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.

2.  The applicant is presumed to have voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he admitted guilt and waived his opportunity to appear before a court-martial.  It is also presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

3.  There is no evidence in his record and he provides none to corroborate his contention that he was stressed out or that he addressed this issue with his chain of command or other support channels at his installation.  

4.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting him the requested relief.

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)                                         AR20130021721





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130021721



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1