IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  7 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140014970 


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 under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

2.  The applicant states when he arrived to his duty assignment in Hawaii his orders were changed from assignment to the 25th Infantry Division (ID) to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 84th Engineer Battalion.  He was assigned to the motor pool and his poor performance was because he had no experience or training with automotive vehicles.  He began to drink heavily and his marriage suffered.  He did not receive any help and he continued to drink uncontrollably.  He had his heart set on serving his country and making his father proud.  His father served in Vietnam so he is so sorry he was unable to fulfill his commitment to the Army.  He would like his discharge upgraded as he is a recovering alcoholic and needs to find a job.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 31 July 1984 and he held military occupational specialty 63J (Quartermaster and Chemical Equipment Repairer).  On 28 December 1984, he was assigned to HHC, 84th Engineer Battalion, 25th ID, HI.

3.  He was reported as absent without leave (AWOL) from his assigned unit from 30 April to 5 May 1985 and from 22 May to 4 June 1985.  On 6 June 1985, he was reported as AWOL from his assigned unit and on 5 July 1985 he was dropped from the rolls (DFR) as a deserter.

4.  On 30 April 1986, he returned to military control and was assigned to the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Ord, CA.

5.  On 7 May 1986, court-martial charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from 6 June 1985 to 30 April 1986.

6.  On 7 May 1986, he consulted with legal counsel who advised him of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for offenses punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of a request for discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge 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.

7.  In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if the discharge request were approved, he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  He also acknowledged he understood he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws, and he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.


8.  On 7 May 1986, he was placed on an excess leave status while his request for a discharge was being processed.

9.  On 29 October and 6 November 1986, his immediate, intermediate, and senior commanders recommended approval of his request for a discharge with the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.

10.  On 6 November 1986, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service and directed the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  On 16 December 1986, he was discharged accordingly.

11.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service- in lieu of court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. He completed 1 year, 4 months, and 28 days of net active service, of which 223 days was excess leave, and he had 348 days (or 11 months and 18 days) of lost time due to being AWOL.

12.  His available record is void of any evidence that shows he was identified as having an alcohol abuse problem or that shows he sought help for or assistance with any issues he had dealing with alcohol or marital problems.

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

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial at any time after charges have been preferred.  A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against him or her or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and he or she must indicate that he or she has been briefed and understands the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge he or she might receive.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.


15.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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 evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 

2.  As such, he voluntarily requested a discharge to avoid a trial by court-martial. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  

3.  Based on his overall record, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel.  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)                                         AR20140014970





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140014970



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1