IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	 25 September 2014 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140003125 


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 that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his first name is not “Raymond” and he did not have a “GED”; therefore, he was not eligible to enlist.  He had only completed the eighth grade and his recruiter had blank GED certificates that were falsified for him to enlist.  He was not a good reader or writer and the damage caused by his recruiter’s actions warrant an upgrade of his discharge because he was destined for failure from the beginning due to being sexually and mentally abused by every authority figure he encountered.  He did not understand what he was signing when he requested his discharge and he now needs medical benefits for all of his medical problems.  The Board should find it in the interest of justice to grant him relief because the military inflicted harm on him by putting him in a place he should never have been.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents with his application.

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 28 April 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) with parental consent for a period of 3 years and training in the medical care career management field.  He enlisted using the first name of “Raymond” and he indicated that he completed the eighth grade and had a high school GED, which is contained in his records.  

3.  He was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey to undergo basic training.  On 
12 June 1972, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for breaking restriction (disobeying a lawful order).

4.  On 14 August 1972, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 4 to 14 August 1972.

5.  After being recycled he eventually completed basic training and was transferred to Fort Sam Houston, Texas for training as a medical specialist. 

6.  On 17 October 1972, NJP was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order given by his first sergeant.

7.  On 24 October 1972, NJP was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer.

8.  On 2 November 1972, NJP was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from an acting sergeant.

9.  The applicant was removed from advanced individual training (AIT) for a medical specialist and he was transferred to Fort Polk, Louisiana where he completed AIT as an infantryman and was transferred to Alaska on 15 March 1973.

10.  On 22 May 1973, NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 
17 to 18 May 1973.




11.  Although the charge sheet is not contained in the available records, the applicant's records reveal that charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from 18 to 21 June 1973, willfully disobeying a lawful command from a commissioned officer, and for communicating a threat to kill.

12.  On 11 July 1973, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  He indicated he was making the request of his own free will without coercion from anyone and he was aware of the implications attached to his request.  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 to submit a statement in his own behalf whereas he asserted that he did not desire to function successfully in a military environment or be rehabilitated and would resist any efforts to return him to duty.  He stated that he would take any kind of discharge to get out of the Army and while he did not desire to commit any misconduct, it would be inevitable if he were retained.

13.  On 26 July 1973, the appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

14.  Accordingly, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, on 7 August 1973 in lieu of trial by court-martial with the issuance of an undesirable discharge.  He completed 1 year, 3 months, and 5 days of active service and accrued 16 days of lost time due to AWOL.

15.  On 16 September 1974, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) contending that he was young at the time and did not realize the mistakes he was making.  He requested that his discharge be upgraded to general.  After reviewing the facts and circumstances in his case the ADRB determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable under the circumstances and voted unanimously to deny his appeal on 14 November 1974.

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

indicate that he or she is submitting the request of his or her own free will without coercion from anyone and that he or she has been briefed and understands the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge he or she might receive.  An undesirable discharge was considered appropriate at the time.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.  On 28 April 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) with parental consent using the first name of “Raymond.”  At that time he indicated he had completed the eighth grade and he had a GED, which is contained in his records.  

2.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation 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.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence or mitigating circumstances 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.  He submitted a statement with his request for discharge and did not raise any of the contentions he now states led to his misconduct.

4.  The applicant's contentions have been considered.  However, he has presented no evidence to substantiate his contentions and they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to the repeated nature of his misconduct, the lack of sufficient mitigating circumstances presented at the time, and his overall undistinguished record of service.  His service simply did not rise to the level of a general discharge.

5.  Accordingly, there appears to be no valid basis to approve his request for 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)                                         AR20140003125



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140003125



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1