BOARD DATE:	  25 November 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140004455 


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, from under other than honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  At the time of his discharge he was informed that this type of discharge was the best option for him because it would convert to honorable after 6 months.

	b.  For the past 25 years he believed his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) had been corrected.  Recently, he discovered a written request must be approved to effect a change in his discharge.  He requests an exception to policy to allow forgiveness of his actions committed over 20 years ago and amendment of his character of service to honorable.

3.  The applicant provides a 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.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 November 1983 for 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewman).

3.  In July 1986, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

4.  His records show he was absent without leave (AWOL) on 16 July 1986 and he remained so absent until he was apprehended by civilian authorities on 10 May 1987 and returned to military control.

5.  His records are void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his final discharge action.  However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 22 September 1987, 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 completed 3 years and 4 days of creditable active service with 298 days of lost time.  His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

6.  There is no evidence showing he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

7.  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.  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.

8.  The U.S. Army has never 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 the character of service or the reason for discharge, or both, was improper or inequitable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends he was informed his discharge would convert to honorable in 6 months; however, a discharge upgrade is not automatic.  Each case is decided on its own merits.

2.  He contends it has been over 20 years since his misconduct; however, the passage of time is normally not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

3.  His records are void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge.  It appears he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge.  

4.  Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant is presumed to have voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he would have admitted guilt and waived his opportunity to appear before a court-martial.  It is also presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Furthermore, in the absence of evidence showing otherwise, it must be presumed that his final discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service during the period under review.

5.  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 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)                                         AR20140004455



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140004455



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1