BOARD DATE:	  23 June 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140019184 


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 his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states at the time he went absent without leave (AWOL) his mother was very very ill.  He was denied leave but he knew his mother needed help so he went AWOL anyway.  After she got better he returned voluntarily ready to take his punishment.  He was given no option other then discharge.  Based on the circumstances it should have been under hardship.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) with an effective date of 18 March 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 7 January 1974, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  On 1 August 1974, he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 
4th Infantry Division Artillery.

3.  On 7 October 1974, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being AWOL from on or about 9 September to on or about 24 September 1974.

4.  On 10 February 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from on or about 18 December 1974 to on or about 
10 February 1975.

5.  On 13 February 1975, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of 
chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations).  He acknowledged he had been afforded the opportunity to speak with counsel prior to making this request.  He acknowledged he understood the elements of the offense he was charged with and he was:

* guilty of the offense with which he was charged
* making the request of his own free will
* advised he may be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate
* advised he could submit statements in his own behalf; he indicated he would not submit a statement

6.  In addition, the applicant was advised he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he was issued an undesirable discharge and he:

* would be deprived of many or all Army benefits
* may be ineligible for many or all veteran's benefits
* may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws

7.  On 3 March 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and reduction to the lowest grade.

8.  On 18 March 1975, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He completed 11 months and 17 days of net active service during the period under review that was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  He had 84 days of time lost.

9.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his discharge.  On 5 February 1982, the ADRB reviewed and denied the applicant's request for upgrade.  The ADRB determined that the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable and that the discharge was properly characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 10 stated a member who was charged with an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, an Undesirable Discharge Certificate was normally furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

	b.  A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends he went AWOL because his mother was ill.  He did not make a statement to that effect at the time he submitted his request for discharge and he has not provided any substantive evidence corroborating his contention.

2.  His contention that upon his return from being AWOL he was given no other option other than a discharge is not supported by the evidence.  He could not have been discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 unless he specifically requested it.  He indicated he was making the request of his own free will.  If he had not requested a discharge, he would have gone to court-martial where he could have provided any mitigating circumstances concerning the reasons for his going AWOL.

3.  The applicant's discharge processing was conducted in accordance with law and regulations in effect at the time.  The characterization of his discharge was commensurate with the reason for discharge and overall record of military service in accordance with the governing regulations in effect at the time.

4.  His service is determined to be unsatisfactory.  He had 84 days time lost and he failed to complete the term of service he contracted for.

5.  There is insufficient substantive evidence to upgrade his undesirable discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

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)                                         AR20140019184



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019184



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1