IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  21 August 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140000725 


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 discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

* he was told his discharge would be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge, but it was not
* his father had been shot and his platoon sergeant denied his request for leave
* he had no choice but to go absent without leave (AWOL)
* when he returned to accept his punishment, he was refused a transfer and processed out with an under other than honorable conditions discharge

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 military service records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 March 1985.  

3.  The applicant's record contains a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) which shows court-martial charges were preferred against him on 20 February 1992 for one specification of being AWOL from 15 July 1991 to 10 February 1992.

4.  On 11 March 1992, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Following counseling, the applicant submitted a voluntary written request for 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 indicated he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request were approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  

5.  The applicant's unit commander recommended approval with an Other than Honorable Discharge.

6.  On 6 May 1992, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-200, chapter 10.  He directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and given an Other than Honorable Discharge.
   
7.  On 4 June 1992, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge after serving 6 years, 7 months, and 14 days of active service.  He had 211 days of lost time due to AWOL.  

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

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

	a.  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, 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 evidence shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid a trial by court-martial for his extended period of AWOL.  He acknowledged he understood he could be ineligible for many or all Army benefits and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  There is no indication his request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  His record shows he had 211 days of lost time due to being AWOL.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.

3.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's 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)                                         AR20140000725



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140000725



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1