BOARD DATE:	  19 August 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140000359 


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 to an honorable discharge.  He also requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show he received "special weapons training for nuclear rounds."  

2.  He states he was absent without leave (AWOL) for 6 months because his mother became sick and he thought she was going to die.  She had two surgeries and survived.  He returned to Fort Bragg, NC, and realized he had made a big mistake.  The discharge was already prepared and happened very quickly.  He had been in for 4 years, had good service the entire time, and reenlisted almost 6 months early.  He states he has been homeless for the last 17 months and in prison for 12 years.  

3.  He provides his DD Form 214.

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 3 July 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  After completing initial entry training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewman).  

3.  On 5 February 1982, he reenlisted.  

4.  On 12 May 1983, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 6, 8, and 10 May 1983.  

5.  On 10 June 1983, he received NJP for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 8 June 1983.  

6.  A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 1 March 1984, shows he was charged with being AWOL from 18 August 1983 to 29 February 1984. 

7.  On 2 March 1984, he consulted with counsel who advised him of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial and the maximum possible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and the rights available to him.

8.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.

	a.  He acknowledged that:

* he could request discharge for the good of the service because a charge had been preferred against him under the UCMJ that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge
* he was making the request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion  
* he was guilty of the charge against him 
* under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation for he had no desire to perform further military service
* he understood he could be discharged under conditions other than honorable and furnished an Under Conditions Other than Honorable Discharge Certificate
* as a result of such a discharge, he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits and could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration
* he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under Federal and State law
* he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of a discharge under other than honorable conditions

	b.  He indicated he would not exercise his right to submit a statement in his own behalf.

9.  On 18 April 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed his discharge under other than honorable conditions.  On 30 April 1984, he was discharged in accordance with the separation authority's decision.  His DD Form 214 shows he completed 4 years, 3 months, and 16 days of net active service.  His DD Form 214 does not show that he completed special weapons training for nuclear rounds.  

10.  On 2 December 1985, he was notified that the Army Discharge Review Board had determined he was properly and equitably discharged and that his request for a changed in the character of and/or reason for his discharge had been denied.  

11.  His record is void of documentation showing he underwent special weapons training for nuclear rounds.  

12.  His record is void of documentation showing that he was AWOL because of a family emergency or that he informed his chain of command of such an emergency.  

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

	a.  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, 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.  

14.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It established standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It stated for item 14 (Military Education) to list in-service training courses, title, number of weeks, year successfully completed during this period of service; e.g., medical, dental, electronics, supply, administration, personnel, or heavy equipment.  This information was to assist the member after separation in job placement and counseling; therefore, training courses for combat skills were not to be listed.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence does not show he underwent special weapons training for nuclear rounds.  Even if there were evidence of such training, it would not be entered on the DD Form 214 because it would have been training for combat skills. 

2.  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's records show he was charged with being AWOL for a lengthy period, an offense for which he could have been tried by court-martial and punished with a punitive discharge under the UCMJ.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout his discharge process.

3.  His contention that he had good service is noted.  This appears to have been true prior to his reenlistment; however, his service after his reenlistment was not good service.  He received NJP twice and he had a lengthy period of AWOL.  Due to this misconduct, his service after his reenlistment did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  



4.  There is no documentary evidence of mitigating circumstances that might have excused his misconduct, and if such circumstances existed, he did not raise them with his chain of command at the time.  The record fully supports the characterization of service he received.  

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis upon which to grant 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)                                         AR20140000359





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140000359



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1