BOARD DATE:	5 May 2015  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140015991 


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 discharge to honorable.

2.  He states:

   a.  He enlisted in the Army for the purpose of becoming a helicopter pilot.  He was going through the testing process and he missed achieving the score to be a helicopter pilot by one point.  His score was high enough to qualify him for helicopter mechanical school and he was told he could retest later.  He was never told he was too tall to become a pilot.  After a few weeks of training, he became sick due to heat stroke and went on sick call.  The doctor informed him that he was no longer qualified for his military occupational specialty (MOS).  He returned to his company where he was given three options:  discharge, 1-year off his 3-year enlistment, or reclassification.

	b.  He only enlisted in the Army to become a helicopter pilot and therefore he chose to be discharged, but his request was denied.  He then selected a new MOS and he was required to choose three different fields of which he selected photography, carpentry, and computers.  He was reassigned to Fort Leonard Wood, MO in an electrical class that he did not ask to attend.  However, he graduated with high grades and was reassigned to Fort Benning, GA to an engineer company where he was responsible for stringing new wire throughout old barracks.

   c.  After 18 months in the service, he had to take an MOS test as an electrician, but did not receive a passing score.  It was also during this time that he was eligible to reenlist, but he could not reenlist because of his low score and his company would not let him take any training to improve his score to retest.  He wrote a letter of resignation and went through his chain of command to no avail.  Two years and one day later, he went absent without leave.

3.  He 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 27 November 1972 for MOS 67V (Helicopter Repairer).

3.  On 8 June 1973, he signed a letter, Subject:  Unfulfilled Enlistment Commitment, indicating that he had been counseled concerning his disqualification from MOS 67V and because of the disqualification, his enlistment commitment could not be fulfilled.  He also indicated that he did not desire to waive his enlistment and submitted the three schools for training.  He indicated he understood that the school choices would be honored depending upon his qualifications and the availability of quotas.  His choices were listed as follows:

* 84B (Still Photographic Specialist)
* 51B (Carpentry and Masonry Specialist)
* 84C (Motion Picture Specialist)

4.  The applicant's record is void of any evidence that shows why he was not reclassified in one of the three MOSs selected.

5.  On 25 July 1973, he was awarded MOS 51R (Electrician) as his primary MOS (PMOS).
6.  His disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on
30 December 1974 for being AWOL from 25 November to 19 December 1974.

7.  A memorandum, Subject:  Additional Information Concerning the Applicant, dated 17 October 1975, stated the applicant's military personnel records revealed:

* He enlisted on 27 November 1972 for helicopter repair training
* He attended helicopter repair training for 17 weeks, but did not complete the course.  His records do not reflect the reason for noncompletion
* He signed a statement on 8 June 1973 waving his enlistment commitment
* He was given the option of choosing three career groups and he received one of the three options
* He waited approximately 27 months to go AWOL because of alleged broken enlistment commitment

8.  On 29 August 1975, charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from 5 March to 27 August 1975.

9.  On 2 October 1975, he consulted with counsel and he voluntarily 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.

10.  In his voluntary request for discharge, he indicated he was making the request of his own free will and had not been subjected to coercion whatsoever by any person.  He understood if his request were accepted he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that by submitting his request he was admitting he was guilty of the charge against him.  He further acknowledged he understood if he received a discharge under other than honorable conditions, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veteran's Administration, he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws, and he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

11.  On 17 October 1975, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.



12.  On 6 November 1975, he was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 shows he received an under other than honorable conditions character of service.  It also shows he completed 2 years, 5 months, and 18 days of net active service during this period with 174 days listed as time lost.

13.  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.

14.  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 includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

	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 contends, in effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because the Army breached his enlistment contract by denying him training as a helicopter pilot. 

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant enlisted for MOS 67V, helicopter repairer and not as a helicopter pilot.  It further shows on 8 June 1973, he signed a letter waiving his enlistment commitment and selecting either still photography, carpentry and masonry, or motion picture as his MOS.  He also signed the letter indicating he understood that the school choices would be honored depending upon his qualifications and the availability of quotas.
3.  It is unknown why he did not attend training for one of the three MOSs selected.  It is assumed that either he did not qualify for those MOSs or there were no quotas available for training.  Nevertheless, on 25 July 1973, he was awarded PMOS 51R, electrician.  

4.  The evidence of record shows charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from 5 March to 27 August 1975, 18 month after being awarded his PMOS.  Therefore, his contention that the fact that he did not receive his requested PMOS led to his AWOL and subsequent discharge is not supported by the available evidence.

5.  The record further shows he admitted he was guilty of being AWOL from
5 March to 27 August 1975.  He voluntarily requested separation for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

6.  His record of service included one instance of NJP and 174 days of lost time.  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 as unsatisfactory.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable or 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)                                         AR20140015991



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140015991



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1