BOARD DATE:	  28 May 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140016006 


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, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

	a.  He made a bad mistake.  He did not think before he spoke.  He was a good troop with Good Conduct Medals.  Long before he got to Germany he worked at Fort Campbell, Kentucky and it was a good assignment.  All was well until he saw four of his co-workers get killed in a helicopter crash.  That bothered him.  The board members say, if a guy didn't see combat he shouldn't be depressed, but it depends on the Soldier.  He asked to talk to someone about what happened but, except for the chaplain he never got the chance because he had orders to Germany.  Not a day goes by that he doesn't see that helicopter going down.

	b.  He used poor judgment when he got to Germany.  He spoke to the first sergeant about what happened at Fort Campbell.  He was sent to sick call where he spoke to a doctor and it was determined that he was depressed.  However, his headquarters was an hour away from a mental health clinic and he never received treatment.  He continued to guard the Pershing Missiles and he was a good troop; but, he never got a chance to talk to mental health.  One day he needed someone to talk to and there was no one and he lost his cool; he forgot where he was.  When he realized what he had done it was too late.

	c.  He is doing much better.  He knows he blew it when he had a chance to keep soldiering and stay in good standing with his company and the Army.  He didn't cry out for help and he is paying for it.  He is asking for forgiveness.  He was not a bad Soldier; he just fell off the wagon and is sorry.  He is working with young people, trying to guide them.  He is also a member of a church and a good citizen.  

3.  The applicant provides no substantiating documentation.

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 8 November 1977.  He completed training as an infantryman an advanced to pay grade E-4.

3.  He was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal in November 1980 and the Air Assault Badge in March 1982.

4.  On 16 May 1983, he was assigned to C Company, 2nd Battalion, 4th Infantry Division in Germany.  In June 1983, he was placed on the weight control program.

5.  On 17 August 1983, the applicant was apprehended by German police following a motor vehicle accident.  The applicant allegedly grabbed the other driver by the neck.  The applicant agreed to a blood alcohol test which showed his blood alcohol content as 1.25 per milliliter.  On 2 February 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for drunk driving.  The DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) indicates that an associated charge of assault was "dismissed."  The punishment consisted of reduction to pay grade 
E-3 and extra duty for 3 days.
6.  On 8 November 1984, the applicant was again advanced to pay grade E-4 and he was awarded the 2nd Army Good Conduct Medal.

7.  On 7 May 1985 charges were preferred against the applicant for – 

* being disrespectful in language toward a captain (threatening language)
* assaulting (his wife) by striking her with his hand about the face and body
* disobeying an order given by his platoon leader to remain within the company's billets
* escaping lawful custody

8.  On 8 May 1985, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for discharge for the good of the service (in lieu of trial by court-martial), which was an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He acknowledged that if the request was accepted he could receive a UOTHC discharge.  He acknowledged that such a discharge would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran and that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a UOTHC discharge.  

9.  The applicant also submitted a statement in which he requested a general discharge.  He detailed his military career and stated that the charges were the result of a fight between him and his wife.  They had reconciled their differences and felt they could work through any future problems.  He was asking for a general discharge because he thought a UOTHC discharge would indicate that his service had been worthless and he did not believe that it had been worthless. 

10.  The chain of command recommended approval of the applicant's request and the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.  The discharge authority approved the discharge request, directed reduction to pay grade E-1, and the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.

11.  On 14 June 1985, the applicant was issued a UOTHC discharge.  His 
DD Form 214 shows he had 7 years, 7 months, and 7 days of creditable active service.  His authorized awards consisted of the Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon (2nd Award), Army Achievement Medal with 2nd Oak Leaf Cluster, Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar, Air Assault Badge, and the Expert Jungle Bar.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel:  It provides in:
	a.  Chapter 10 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 UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a states 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.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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.  There is no evidence to support the applicant's contention concerning the helicopter crash and associated depression problems or any evidence to support the implied conclusion that those alleged circumstances warrants the requested relief.  

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 service prior to his arrival in Germany is acknowledged; however, after arriving in Germany his record included offenses of drunk driving, two assaults, threatening a female captain, disobeying his platoon leader, and escaping lawful custody. 

4.  He acknowledges he made a mistake, but his offenses include violence and other serious misconduct resulting in his discharge.

5.  His discharge was properly characterized due to the offenses for which he requested discharge rather than stand trial by a court-martial.

6.  In view of the foregoing there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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)                                         AR20140016006



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140016006



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1