IN THE CASE OF:  


		BOARD DATE:  7 April 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140012507 


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 upgrade of his discharge.

2.  The applicant states if the Army had not changed his military occupational specialty (MOS) he would not have gone absent without leave (AWOL).  He didn't want to be a cook.  He qualified for heavy equipment operator or maintenance and that's what he wanted to do.

3.  The applicant provides no supporting documents.

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 6 November 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He qualified for training in MOS 62B20 (Engineer Heavy Equipment Operation and Maintenance).

3.  The applicant completed basic training and was transferred to the U.S. Army Engineer School, Fort Belvoir, Virginia to complete his MOS training commencing on 25 January 1970.

4.  The applicant was AWOL from 9 February to 17 February 1970 for which he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

5.  On 13 April 1970, the applicant was reassigned to on-the-job training as a cook.  Thereafter, he accepted four more NJPs and was convicted by a summary court-martial for being absent from his place of duty and AWOL.

6.  He was AWOL from 18 August 1971 until 5 January 1972 when he was apprehended by civil authorities in his hometown.  The applicant's complete discharge proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial are not contained in his available military record.  However, on 8 February 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed an undesirable discharge.

7.  On 15 February 1972, the applicant was discharged with a characterization of service of under conditions other than honorable under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had completed 1 year, 5 months, and 27 days of creditable service and had a total of 290 days of lost time.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 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, 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.  At the time, an Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.  

	a.  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.

	b.  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.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.

9.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) provides the policies and procedures for the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records.  Paragraph 2-9 provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he only went AWOL because the Army changed his MOS.

2.  The applicant apparently went AWOL well before he was dropped from his chosen training course.

3.  In the absence of evidence showing otherwise it must be presumed that the discharge was conducted in accordance with the established law and regulations.  

4.  The applicant's record of service included 290 days of time lost.  His discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, indicates he voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  His misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory and there is no basis for granting the 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)                                         AR20140012507



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140012507



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1