IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  16 September 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140002552 


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 his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

2.  The applicant states that he was young at the time and did not know how serious his discharge would affect him for life.  He needs his discharge upgraded so he can obtain medical benefits.

3.  The applicant provides documents showing he is under a doctor’s care.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 January 1982 for a period of 3 years, training as a unit supply specialist, and assignment to Europe.  He completed basic training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and advanced individual training at Fort Lee, Virginia before being transferred to Germany on 13 May 1982.

3.  He completed his tour in Germany and was transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky on 6 January 1984.  On 4 January 1985, he reenlisted for a period of   5 years in pay grade E-4.

4.  On 31 July 1985, he was again transferred to Germany for assignment to an air defense artillery battery.

5.  On 30 December 1986, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  

6.  On 31 March 1987, NJP was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer.

7.  Although the charge sheet is not present in the available records, his records show that charges were preferred against him for two specifications of wrongful possession of marijuana in the hashish form, operating a motor vehicle while drunk, and for wrongfully offering a military policeman $300.00 to release him.

8.  On 29 September 1987, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a 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, he indicated he was making the request of his own free will without coercion from anyone and that he was aware of the implications attached to his request.  He also admitted he was guilty of the charges against him or of lesser-included offenses that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He acknowledged he understood he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and he might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

9.  On 1 October 1987, the appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request for discharge and directed the applicant be given an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 

10.  On 20 October 1987, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He completed 5 years, 8 months, and 23 days of active service.  

11.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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

	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 at any time after charges have been preferred.  A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against him or her or of a lesser-included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and he or she must indicate he or she has been briefed and understands the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge he or she might receive.  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’s voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate under the circumstances.

2.  After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence before a trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his record.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the charges against him.
3.  The applicant's contentions and supporting documents have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief under the circumstances given the serious nature of his offenses and his otherwise undistinguished record of service.  Additionally, discharges are not normally upgraded simply for the purpose of qualifying individuals for benefits.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary 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)                                         AR20140002552



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140002552



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1