IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE: 28 April 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140016600


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 correction of his military records to upgrade his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to honorable.
   
2.  The applicant states he was a young kid at the time.  He made some bad decisions; but, otherwise was an outstanding Soldier.  With about 4 months until his discharge date, he got into a fight.  He had received the Army Good Conduct Medal and was recommended for reenlistment.  He argues that his life has changed.  He is now a minister.  He is living with a cloud over his head because of the UOTHC discharge.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* Letter from the National Personnel Records Center, dated 10 December 2010

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 8 October 1984, the applicant, at the age of 18 years and 6 months, enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his initial training as a light wheel vehicle mechanic.

3.  On 1 February 1986, the applicant was advanced to the rank of specialist four, pay grade E-4.

4.  On 10 December 1986, charges were preferred against the applicant under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for violation of Article 128 for committing an assault upon another Soldier by cutting him with a broken glass.

5.  On 16 December 1986, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of the offense discussed above.  His sentence included a reduction to private, pay grade E-1.

6.  On 1 March 1987, the applicant was advanced to private, pay grade E-2.

7.  On 1 August 1987, the applicant was advanced to private first class, pay grade E-3.

8.  The applicant's administrative discharge packet is missing from his military records.  However, his DD Form 214 shows that he was administratively discharged on 3 June 1988, under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service.  His service was characterized as UOTHC.  He completed 3 years, 7 months, and 26 days of creditable active duty service.

9.  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.

10.  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 UOTHC 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 (emphasis added), 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 that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded because he was young at the time and was an outstanding Soldier.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

3.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The applicant was 18 years and 6 months of age when he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He had successfully completed his initial training and attained the rank of specialist four, pay grade E-4 prior to his first offense.  His satisfactory performance demonstrates his capacity to serve and shows that he was neither too young nor immature.

4.  The available records do not contain any evidence of the misconduct that led to the applicant's discharge.  Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any substantiating evidence or convincing argument to support his contention that his discharge was unjust.

5.  The applicant’s claim of now being more responsible is noted.  However, it does not sufficiently mitigate his repeated acts of indiscipline during his military service.

6.  In view of the foregoing, 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)                                         AR20110020309



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140016600



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1