IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  12 March 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140011796 


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.

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

* he made a bad mistake by being absent without leave (AWOL) for an excessive amount of time
* he is not saying the record is in error or unjust
* he was informed to take the discharge in lieu of a court-martial and that he wouldn't lose all of his benefits

3.  In an undated letter, he states:

	a.  He is married and has five sons.  He is an ordained minister and has been preaching since 1983.  He has been a pastor for 18 years.

	b.  In 1971 he was having a serious family problem and his commanding officer would not grant him leave to go home and settle this issue.  He left without authority.  He went back to his unit, but he was so depressed he left again.  He eventually turned himself in at Fort Polk, LA.

4.  The applicant provides:

* DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the periods ending 14 July 1966 and 29 March 1972
* Character-reference letter
* letters of commendation
* certificates of training

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 was inducted into the Army of the United States on 4 August 1964.  On 14 July 1966, he was honorably released from active duty.

3.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 January 1968 for 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11E (armor crewman).

4.  Between February 1968 and August 1969, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him on three occasions for:

* assaulting a sentinel
* being absent without authority for 1 hour on 7 November 1968 and failing to obey a lawful order
* being AWOL from 22 to 23 August 1969 

5.  On 22 October 1969, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 9 to 26 September 1969.  He was sentenced to forfeit $100.00 pay for 3 months.  On 24 October 1969, the convening authority approved the sentence.

6.  On 1 March 1972, the following AWOL charges were preferred against the applicant:

* 3 February 1970 to 5 February 1970
* 9 February 1970 to 9 November 1970


* 21 November 1970 to 2 March 1971
* 7 May 1971 to 28 February 1972 

7.  On 2 March 1972, 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 indicated he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He also acknowledged he understood he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  On 23 March 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

9.  On 29 March 1972, 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 a total of 3 years, 3 months, and 10 days of total active service with 691 days of lost time.

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

11.  He provided a character-reference letter from a deacon of his church who attests:

* the applicant became a member of the church in 1982
* he preached his first sermon in November 1983
* in 1996 he was chosen to be the pastor of his church
* he has been a faithful pastor for 18 years 

12.  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 character-reference letter submitted on behalf of the applicant failed to show his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

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 discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The letters of commendation and certificates of training provided by the applicant were carefully considered.  However, his record of service during his last enlistment included imposition of three NJPs, one special court-martial conviction, and 691 days of lost time.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

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)                                         AR20140011796



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140011796



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1