IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  25 June 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140018457 


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.

2.  The applicant states he would like his discharge upgraded. 

3.  The applicant does not provide any documentation in support of his application. 

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 U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 27 October 1977.  He entered active duty for training (ADT) on 28 October 1977 and completed training for military occupational specialty (MOS) 76D (Materiel Supply Specialist). 

3.  He was honorably released from ADT to the control of the USAR on 25 April 1978.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) for this period shows he completed 5 months and 28 days of active service. 

4.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 February 1979.  He held MOS 94B (Food Service Specialist) and 76C (Equipment Records and Parts Specialist).  He was assigned to the 7th Infantry Division at Fort Ord, CA.

5.  He attained the rank/grade of private first class/E-3 and he was awarded or authorized the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar. 

6.  His records show he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on: 

* 30 August 1979 for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty 
* 11 October 1979 for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty
* 10 December 1979 for vacation of a suspended reduction to PVT/E-1 
* 31 July 1980 for willfully disobeying a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer (NCO) and willfully disobeying an order not to have alcoholic beverages in a field environment 
* 30 October 1980 for being disrespectful towards a superior NCO and making a false statement 
* 8 December 1980 for wrongfully possessing marijuana and failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty

7.  On 21 May 1981, his commander notified him that he was considering if he should be punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and violating a general regulation.  He declined the Article 15 and demanded trial by court-martial.

8.  On 3 June 1981, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification of failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and one specification of failing to obey a general regulation. 

9.  On 22 June 1981, he consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of a request for discharge, and the procedures and rights available to him. Following consultation with legal counsel, he 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.  In his request for discharge, he acknowledged:

* he was making this request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person
* he understood by requesting a discharge he was admitting guilt to the charges against him or of lesser-included offenses that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge
* he acknowledged he understood if his discharge request were approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits
* he acknowledged he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws
* he stated that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation or to perform further military service
* he did not elect to submit a statement on his own behalf 

10.  On 29 June 1981, the separation authority approved his 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, and directed the applicant receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge with reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.

11.  On 7 July 1981, he underwent a mental status evaluation.  He was found mentally responsible and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in his separation proceedings.

12.  The applicant was discharged on 14 July 1981.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  He completed 2 years, 5 months, and 2 days of active service during this period. 

13.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for a review 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.  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.

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  It 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.

	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's records show he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  The evidence of record clearly shows the applicant was advised of his rights by legal counsel and he indicated that he knew the implications of his decision.  He chose discharge in lieu of a court-martial that could have adjudged a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge.  Based on his record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  His misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, there is no basis for upgrading 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 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)                                         AR20140018457





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140018457



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1