IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  16 December 2014	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140008150 


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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he needs his discharge upgraded so that he can get Social Security benefits. 

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.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 November 1976 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his one-station unit training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and was transferred to Fort Lewis, Washington where he remained until he was honorably discharged on 23 May 1979 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.

3.  On 24 May 1979, he reenlisted for a period of 3 years and assignment to Europe.

4.  On 20 August 1979, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 19 July to 20 July 1979 and 27 July to 31 July 1979.

5.  He departed for assignment to Germany on 14 November 1979 and was assigned to a unit in Baumholder as an electrician.

6.  On 19 January 1980, the applicant went AWOL and remained absent in desertion until he was returned to military control on 28 June 1980.

7.  The facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge are not present in the available records as they were loaned to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Seattle, Washington on 18 November 1980.  However, his records do contain a duly-authenticated DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) which shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions at Fort Ord, California on 21 August 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 9 months and 11 days of active service during his current enlistment for a total of 3 years, 3 months, and 26 days of active service and had 172 days of lost time due to AWOL.

8.  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.

9.  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 characterization of service he or she might receive.  An under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

11.  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.  The applicant's record is void of the complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge.  It appears he was charged with the commission of offense(s) punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 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 his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

2.  The applicant's contentions have been considered.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to the extensive length of his absences, his overall record of service, and the absence of mitigating circumstances.  Additionally, discharges are not normally upgraded simply for the purpose of qualifying individuals for benefits.  As such, his service simply did not rise to the level of an honorable or a general discharge.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.







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)                                         AR20140008150





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140008150



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1