DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140000985 


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 upgrade of his undesirable discharge to general, under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states he was a conscientious objector at the time of his discharge.  He objected to serving in the military on moral grounds and did not like weapons.  He did not want to bear arms against any foreign country.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation.

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 1 September 1970, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States.
3.  On 6 October 1970, the applicant was assigned to a basic training company at Fort Knox, KY.  On 10 October 1970, he was absent without leave (AWOL).

4.  On 12 September 1974, court-martial charges were preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for violation of Article 86, AWOL, during the period 10 October 1970 to 4 September 1974.

5.  On 19 September 1974, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service pursuant to the provisions of Presidential Proclamation 4313, dated 16 September 1974.  He acknowledged that he was requesting to participate in the President’s Clemency Program.  He stated that he understood he would be issued an Undesirable Discharge and may be required to perform alternate service as determined by the Joint Alternate Service Board and that he would be required to reaffirm his allegiance to the United States of America.

6.  On 27 September 1974, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 shows he completed 2 months and 3 days of creditable active duty service and accrued a total of 1,420 days of time lost.

7.  On 11 July 1975, the Reconciliation Services Division Manager, Selective Service System, Washington, DC, terminated the applicant from the Reconciliation Service Program because he did not complete his required period of alternate service.

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

9.  Presidential Proclamation 4313, issued on 16 September 1974, provided for the issuance of a clemency discharge to certain former Soldiers, who voluntarily entered into and completed an alternate public work program specifically designated for former Soldiers who received a less than honorable discharge for AWOL related incidents between August 1964 and March 1973.  Under this proclamation, eligible deserters were given the opportunity to request discharge for the good of the service with the understanding that they would receive an undesirable discharge.  Upon successful completion of the specified alternative service, the deserter was issued a clemency discharge.  The clemency discharge did not affect the individual’s underlying discharge, and did not entitle him to any Veterans Administration benefits.  Rather, it restored federal and, in most instances, state civil rights which may have been denied due to the less than honorable discharge.  If a participant of the program failed to complete the period of alternative service the original undesirable characterization of service, would be retained.
10.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel): sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

   a.  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.

   b.  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 that his undesirable discharge should be upgraded to general under honorable conditions because he was a conscientious objector at the time.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  Based on the applicant's record of 1,420 days of lost time, he clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel.  This extremely long period of lost time rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Furthermore, he did not complete the alternate service as he agreed to do.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his 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)                                         AR20140000985





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140000985



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1