IN THE CASE OF:	 

		BOARD DATE:	  5 May 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140015756 


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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).

2.  The applicant states:

* he wants his discharge upgraded so he can obtain veterans' benefits
* he was not charged with a crime
* he was an upstanding Soldier
* he was put in charge of the mailroom, but he was in over his head and he failed to notify his first sergeant of his situation
* he didn't want to disappoint his superiors
* he took work home which is a violation of Federal law
 
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 27 December 1979 for 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 71L (administrative specialist).  He attained the rank of specialist four.

3.  On 15 April 1982, charges were preferred against him for:

* altering a money order with intent to defraud
* uttering a money order with intent to defraud
* stealing a money order

4.  On 29 April 1982, he consulted with counsel and 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.  He acknowledged that by submitting his request for discharge he was guilty of a charge against him that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He indicated he understood he might be issued a UOTHC discharge, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He acknowledged he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he was issued a UOTHC discharge.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

5.  On 6 May 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.

6.  On 21 May 1982, 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.  He completed 2 years, 4 months, and 25 days of creditable active service.  His service was characterized as UOTHC.

7.  In November 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his petition for an upgrade of his discharge.

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

	a.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 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 the charges have been preferred.  A UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate, but the separation authority may direct an honorable or a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record and if the Soldier's record is so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper.

	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 applicant wants his discharge upgraded so he can receive veterans' benefits.  However, a discharge is not changed solely for the purpose of qualifying an applicant for veterans' benefits.  Each request is individually considered based on the evidence presented.

2.  Since his record of service included serious offenses for which court-martial charges were preferred against him, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

3.  His voluntary request for discharge 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 in conformance with applicable regulations.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he elected not to do so.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for his discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  In view of the foregoing information, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant 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 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)                                         AR20140015756



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140015756



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1