IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  14 April 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140014857 


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 a general under honorable conditions discharge.

2.  The applicant states he lost forty pounds while in Vietnam due to stress.  He wasn't offered mental health services when he returned home to help him cope with the memories and horrors, so he drank.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty).  

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 19 June 1967.  He served in the Republic of Vietnam from 30 December 1967 to 22 December 1968.

3.  On 12 June 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of four specifications of being absent without leave (AWOL) during the following periods in 1969:

* 4 to 6 March 
* 7 to 16 March
* 22 March to 8 April
* 13 April to 15 May

4.  On 26 July 1974, charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from 21 October 1969 to 16 July 1974.

5.  He consulted with legal counsel and 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.  In doing so, he acknowledged that he understood the elements of the offense charged and that he was guilty of the charge against him.  He also acknowledged he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if an undesirable discharge were issued.  He submitted statements in his own behalf.  His statements are not present in his personnel records.  

6.  On 10 August 1974, the separation authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 with issuance of an undesirable discharge and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.  

7.  On 21 August 1974, he was discharged after completing 1 year, 11 months, and 24 days of creditable active service with 1,893 days of lost time.  

8.  On 7 December 1984, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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 and must have included the individual's admission of guilt.  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.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service.  

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 paragraph 3-7b states 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 statements that he lost forty pounds while in Vietnam due to stress and he wasn't offered mental health services when he returned home to help him cope with the memories and horrors are acknowledged.  However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief without committing the misconduct (AWOL) which led to his discharge.  

2.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

3.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid a court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

4.  The applicant's record shows he was charged with being AWOL, which is punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  He admitted he was guilty of the offense for which he was charged.  He was also convicted by a special court-martial of four specifications of AWOL.  He had a record of 1,893 days of lost time.

5.  Based on this record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he is not entitled to 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)                                         AR20140014857



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140014857



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1