IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  30 July 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140019531 


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 undesirable discharge to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states the type of discharge he received was unjust because he was having family problems at the time.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 1 August 1972 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63A (mechanic maintenance apprentice).

3.  In April 1973, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failing to repair.

4.  He was absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 October 1973 to 22 November 1973.  On 23 November 1973, charges were preferred against him for the AWOL period.  Trial by special court-martial was recommended.

5.  On 19 December 1973 after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for 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.  He indicated he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He also acknowledged he understood he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge.  He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In summary he stated:

* he joined the Army because he liked it
* he wanted to go overseas to fight for his country, but when he enlisted they stopped fighting in Vietnam
* he wanted out of the Army because it is not fair to everyone
* the white and Mexican Soldiers have to cut their hair but the black Soldiers do not
* he was AWOL because the Army is not fair

6.  On 18 January 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

7.  On 23 January1974, he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He completed 1 year, 4 months, and 6 days of total active service with 43 days of lost time.

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

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  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.

	b.  Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed 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 at any time after court-martial charges were preferred.  Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service.  Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his discharge is unjust because he was having family problems at the time.  However, family problems alone are normally not a basis for upgrading a discharge.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change to the character of his or her service.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the character of service or the reason for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable.

2.  His voluntary request for separation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, was administratively correct and conformed with applicable regulations.

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

4.  His record of service included imposition of one nonjudicial punishment and 43 days of lost time.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory.

5.  In view of the foregoing evidence, there is no basis for granting the applicant a general 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 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)                                         AR20140019531



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019531



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1