BOARD DATE:	  20 January 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140009163 


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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states at the time he was absent without leave (AWOL) he was under severe depression due to the death of his father.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) with an effective date of 30 September 1974. 

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 10 April 1974, he enlisted in the Missouri Army National Guard (MOARNG).  He entered active duty on 24 May 1974 and he was released from active duty and returned to his unit on 20 September 1974.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer).

3.  On 20 May 1975, he was ordered to report for active duty effective 2 July 1975.

4.  On 1 July 1975, he was discharged from the MOARNG.  His National Guard Bureau (NGB) 22 (National Guard Bureau, Report of Separation and Record of Service) indicated that he was ordered to involuntary active duty for failure to satisfactorily participate in required unit training.

5.  On 2 July 1975, he failed to report to active duty and he was placed in an AWOL status.  On 31 July 1975, he was dropped from the rolls.

6.  On 19 January 1976, he was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control.

7.  The complete facts and circumstances of his discharge are not contained in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 with an effective date of 
4 February 1976 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He completed 15 days of active service that was characterized as under conditions other than honorable.  He had 201 days of time lost.

8.  His service medical records were not available for review.

9.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  

	a.  Chapter 10 stated a member who was charged with 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 in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, an Undesirable Discharge Certificate was normally furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

	b.  An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would have been clearly inappropriate.  

	c.  A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  He contends he was under severe depression at the time of his AWOL.  However, he has provided no substantive evidence to support his contention.  His service medical records were not available for review.  His service personnel record contains no evidence of him receiving a diagnosis or treatment for depression.

2.  The available evidence does not include the complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge.  

3.  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 making his request, he would also have admitted his guilt.  It is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  The fact that he was apprehended by civilian authorities after 201 days of being AWOL raises doubt as to his intent to return to military jurisdiction of his own volition.  Therefore, his service is considered unsatisfactory and there is no basis upon which to upgrade his undesirable discharge to either 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)                                         AR20140009163



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140009163



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1