IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  26 March 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140014096 


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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

2.  The applicant states:

     a.  He served in the United States Armed Forces from 1966 through 1973.  He was assigned to combat duties in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne Division.  It was his job to carry various military supplies.

   b.  His commander at the time requested that he receive a GD for medical reasons.  He was not given a GD.  He was told that he would be getting a medical discharge because of his mental state.  When he received his discharge papers in the mail he learned he had received a UOTHC discharge.

     c.  He was very young and just happy to have made it home safely.  He attempted several times to request an upgrade of his discharge but he did not follow through.  When he returned home from combat he had many issues to overcome, such as drugs and alcohol.

     d.  He is now 64 years old and finds himself at retirement age.  He has gone through a lot mental anguish, drug abuse and employment issues.  He is requesting an upgrade of his discharge in order to received military benefits.  He feels he deserves an upgrade because he enlisted to serve his country during the Vietnam era
     e.  His record indicates that he disobeyed orders and he had lost time for failure of his duties and obligations while he was in the military.  At the time, he did not understand the struggle with regard to his Vietnam experiences.  He knows that his behavior was not acceptable for Soldiers and he has paid the consequences of his errors.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), and a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

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 13 December 1966.  He was 17 years old.

3.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in item 44 (Time Lost Under Section 972, Title 10, United States Code and Subsequent to Normal Date ETS [Expiration Term of Service]) he was:

	a.  absent without leave (AWOL) during the following periods:

* 5 March 1967 to 29 October 1967
* 28 December 1967 to 19 March 1968 
* 12 April 1969 to 14 April 1969
* 16 April 1969 to 19 April 1969
* 2 May 1969 to 3 May 1969
* 5 May 1969 to 12 May 1969
* 16 May 1969 to 19 May 1969
* 21 May 1969 to 28 May 1969
* 30 May 1969 to 7 June 1969
* 28 October 1970 to 21 December 1970
* 23 February 1971 to 30 June 1971
* 22 June 1972 to 25 October 1972

b.  in hands of civil authorities from 2 August 1971 to 24 May 1972; and

c.  confined from 27 October 1972 to 29 June 1973.

4.  Special Court-Martial Order 1825, issued by Headquarters, Special Troops, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Dix, NJ,  dated 15 December 1967, shows he was found guilty of being AWOL from 5 March 1967 to 5 August 1967 and from 8 August 1967 to 29 October 1967.  His punishment consisted of being confined at hard labor for 4 months and forfeiture of $641.00 for 4 months.  

5.  Special Court-Martial Order 767, issued by Special Troops Regiment, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Meade, MD, dated 11 April 1968  shows he was convicted of being AWOL from 28 December 1967 to 19 March 1968.  His sentence was confinement at hard labor for 4 months.

6.  Special Court-Martial Order 78, issued by Headquarters, 68th Maintenance Battalion (DS), Fort Campbell, KY, dated 23 July 1968 shows he was found guilty of failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 24 June 1968, without proper authority absenting himself from his place of duty on 24 June 1968, and using disrespectful language toward his direct supervisor.  His punishment consisted of confinement at hard labor for 3 months and forfeiture of two-thirds of his pay for 3 months.

7.  A DA Form 3545 (Deserter Wanted by the Armed Forces), dated 1 November 1971, shows he was dropped from the rolls (DFR) 5 August 1971.
8.  A DA Form 19-32 (Military Police Report), dated 30 May 1972, shows that he was apprehended by civil authorities on 15 August 1971.  On 25 May 1972 he was ordered placed on parole and released to military authorities.

8.  A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 2 June 1972, shows he was charged with being AWOL from 28 October 1970 to 1 July 1971 and 2 August 1971 to     25 May 1972.

9.  On 6 June 1972, after consulting with counsel, he voluntarily requested 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.


	a.  He acknowledged that:

* he could request discharge for the good of the service because a charge had been preferred against him under the UCMJ that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge
* he understood he could be issued a UOTHC discharge and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate  
* as a result of such a discharge, he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration
* he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under Federal and State laws
* he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of a UOTHC discharge

	b.  He indicated he would not submit statements in his own behalf. 

10.  A DA Form 3545, dated 27July 1972, shows he was DFR again on                23 June 1972.

11.  A DA Form 3836 (Notice of Return of U.S. Army Member from Unauthorized Leave), dated 4 November 1872, shows he was returned to military control on  26 October 1972. 

12.  A DD Form 458, dated 22 November 1972, shows he was charged with being AWOL from 28 October 1970 to 1 July 1971, 2 August 1971 to                 25 May 1972, and 22 June 1972 to 26 October 1972.

13.  A  DD Form 458, dated 14 December 1972, shows he was charged with being AWOL from 28 October 1970 to 22 December 1970; 23 February 1971 to  1 July 1971; 2 August 1971 to 25 May 1972; and 22 June 1972 to                         26 October 1972.

14.  Special Court-Martial Order 52, issued by U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility, Fort Meade, MD, dated 21 March 1973, shows that he was found guilty of being AWOL from 28 October 1970 to 22 December 1970; 23 February 1971 to  1 July 1971; 2 August 1971 to 25 May 1972; and 22 June 1972 to                         26 October 1972.

15.  On 19 June 1973, the Post Commander approved his discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unfitness.  He directed he be discharged in the lowest enlisted grade and that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
16.  On 29 June 1973, he was discharged accordingly.  He completed 3 years, 2 months, and 26 days of total service, with 660 days of AWOL, 245 days of confinement, and 296 days in the hands of civilian authority.

17.  His records are void of any information pertaining to any medical issues during his period of service.

18.  A review of his available records does not show that he served in the Republic of Vietnam.

19.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

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

   a.  Chapter 13 of the regulation in effect at the time established policy and provided procedures and guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  The regulation provided that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness when one or more of the following conditions existed:  (1) because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; (2) sexual perversion including but not limited to lewd and lascivious acts, indecent exposure, indecent acts with or assault on a child; (3) drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana; (4) an established pattern of shirking; (5) an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts; and (6) an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to contribute adequate support to dependents (including failure to comply with orders, decrees, or judgments).  When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
   
   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.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  His contention that he was very young at the time of his discharge is noted; however, there is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.

2.  His problems and concerns were noted; however, the ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making an applicant eligible for benefits.

3.  He was a deserter on two separate occasions who was apprehended by civil authorities.  He was returned to military control and charged with being AWOL. 

4.  His record shows that he was convicted by a court-martial on four separate occasions.

5.  Based on this record of indiscipline, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his 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)                                         AR20140014096





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140014096



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1