IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  6 January 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140007710 


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 undesirable discharge to general under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states he was raised by his grandparents.  His grandmother passed away and he asked for hardship leave.  His request was denied, so he left.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 29 October 1965 for 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12B (combat engineer).  He served in Vietnam from 18 May 1966 to 20 December 1967.  On 28 October 1968, he was honorably released from active duty.

3.  After a 6-year break in service, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 September 1975 for 4 years.

4.  His records are void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge.  However, his Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Proceedings state:

	a.  On 27 April 1976, charges were preferred against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 29 January to 12 April 1976.

	b.  On 27 April 1976 after consulting with counsel, he 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 elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

	c.  On 11 May 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

5.  On 18 May 1976, he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He completed 6 months and 3 days of net active service during this period and accrued 73 days of lost time.

6.  In 1982, the ADRB denied his request for an honorable discharge.

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

	a.  Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred.  Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service.  Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.  

	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 contends he was AWOL because his grandmother passed away and his request for leave was denied.  However, family problems alone are normally not a basis for upgrading a discharge.  In addition, there is no evidence he sought assistance from his chain of command in resolving his family problems within established Army procedures prior to being AWOL.

2.  His voluntary request for separation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, was administratively correct and conformed with applicable regulations.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement wherein he could have voiced his concerns; however, he elected not to do so.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  His brief record of service during his last enlistment included 73 days of lost time.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant a general discharge under honorable conditions.



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)                                         AR20140007710



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140007710



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1