IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  21 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140016291 


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 that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states his parents signed him up for the Army when he was 
17 years of age.  His intention was to go to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) to assist his brother who was stationed in the RVN.  However, this did not happen.  Instead, he was stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, where all he did was garrison duty which was boring and unchallenging.  He contends that his chain of command took him out to drink.  This is when his disciplinary problems began.  He became an alcoholic.  His total disregard for military standards and discipline was due to his being angry about not going to the RVN.  He self-medicated and felt inadequate because he was not able to help support his brother.  When he went on temporary duty to the Federal Republic of Germany for Exercise Brigade 75 from May to October 1975, he received a certificate of appreciation and completed platoon confidence training.  His time in the field was always excellent.  He further contends that his chain of command did not counsel him, send him to treatment, or keep him gainfully employed in field training.  He now asks the Board for clemency due to his young age and immaturity at the time.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* Certificate of Training, Platoon Confidence Training, dated 22 August 1975
* Certificate of Appreciation, dated 21 October 1975

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.  On 10 June 1974, the applicant, at 17 years and 6 months of age, enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed training as a wheeled vehicle mechanic.

3.  On 27 August 1974, the applicant was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas.

4.  On 1 June 1975, the applicant was advanced to private first class, pay grade E-3.  On 10 November 1975, he was advanced to specialist four, pay grade E-4.

5.  The applicant accepted the following six nonjudicial punishments (NJPs):

* 24 January 1975: for failure to go to his place of duty on two occasions
* 19 December 1975: for being absent without authority for 5 days
* 8 September 1976: for failure to go to his place of duty and for being absent without authority for 2 days
* 22 September 1976: for being absent without authority for 2 days
* 13 October 1976: for being absent without authority for 2 days
* 8 November 1976: for being absent without authority for 4 days, breaking restriction, and failing to go to his place of duty on 5 occasions

6.  On 8 February 1977, the applicant's commander notified him of his intention to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5a(1) due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

7.  On 8 February 1977, the applicant elected to waive his rights to a board of officers, to a personal appearance before a board of officers, and to have representation by counsel.

8.  On 11 February 1977, the applicant was counseled about his rights.
9.  On 11 February 1977, the commander recommended that the applicant be discharged for misconduct under the provisions and reason discussed above.

10.  On 28 February 1977, the appropriate separation authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a DD Form 794A (Discharge Certificate UOTHC).

11.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), as then in effect, set forth the policy and prescribed the procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 13, applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability.  Paragraph 13-5(a) provided for the separation for unfitness, which included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature, sexual perversion, drug abuse, shirking, failure to pay just debts, failure to support dependents and homosexual acts.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

	b.  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 that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions because he was young and immature at the time.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant's contention that he was young at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was 17 and 1/2 years of age when he enlisted.  He satisfactorily completed training and was advanced to the rank of specialist four, pay grade E-4.  This clearly shows that he knew how to serve and was able to do so in an acceptable manner and that he was neither too young nor immature to serve honorably.

5.  The applicant's contention that his chain of command was the cause of his becoming an alcoholic is not supported by any of the available evidence.

6.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20140016291





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140016291



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1