IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 July 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140019751 


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, in effect, an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  he made some bad decisions at the age of 17 years old when he was given cigarettes laced with heroin whereby his use resulted in his addiction;
   
   b.  while his drug addiction took over his life and was not a secret, no one in his chain of command helped him or showed him where to get outside help;
   
   c.  his discharge has caused him great depression and he feels he should have been given an opportunity to be rehabilitated while he remained in the Army; and
   
   d.  he sought his own help after getting out of the service, received rehabilitation, and has grown into a responsible Veteran.
   
3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge)
* VA Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim)
* a copy of his social security number (SSN) card
4.  The Lamar County Veterans Service Officer (VSO) requests correction of the applicant's military record to show his correct social security number (SSN).

5.  The Lamar County VSO states all of the applicant's military record reflects his SSN as XXX-96-XXXX instead of XXX-69-XXXX.

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's military record contains the DD Form 4 (Enlistment Contract – Armed Forces of the United States) completed during his enlistment processing.  Item 1 (Service No./SSAN) lists the entry XXX-69-XXXX and he authenticated this document with his signature.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 July 1971.  He was trained in and served in military occupational specialty 63B (Wheel Vehicle Repairman).

4.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) prepared upon his entry on active duty lists his SSN as XXX-69-XXXX.  It also shows he was promoted to the rank of private first class/E-3 on 18 November 1971, and this was his highest rank held.  

5.  Item 44 (Time Lost Under Section 972, Title 10, United States Code) of the DA Form 20 shows the applicant was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on four separate occasions between 1 May – 7 September 1972, totaling 111 days.

6.  On 10 April 1972, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 5 April 1972.


7.  On 20 September 1972, a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was prepared preferring a court-martial charge against the applicant for violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by being AWOL on or about the following three periods:

* 1 – 30 May 1972
* 9 June – 25 August 1972
* 5 – 8 September 1972

8.  On 11 September 1972, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He indicated he had not been subjected to coercion whatsoever by any person and made his request of his own free will. He elected to submit a statement on his own behalf wherein he indicated:

* he takes pride in the way he was raised to do his work correctly the first time so that he would not have to do it twice
* the Army has done more useless things than he could ever imagine
* it is wrong to put the lower ranks on detail first
* he tried to make a good impression and straightening out but the harder he tried the more he got into trouble
* the Army made him not care for himself or anyone else and he feels he cannot function properly in the Army
* he began to regain himself during his periods of AWOL and that he would do anything within his power to free himself from the Army

9.  In his request for discharge the applicant acknowledged he understood he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He also indicated he understood he could face substantial prejudice in civilian life if he were issued an undesirable discharge.

10.  A Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 14 September 1972, shows the applicant was administered a separation medical examination.  The applicant indicated he was in good health at that time.  There is no evidence of any drug addiction on this document or anywhere else in his official military personnel file.
11.  On 18 October 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He directed that the applicant be given an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

12.  All documents on file in the applicant's official military personnel file containing his SSN, list the SSN that he claims is incorrect and, when required, he authenticated each of the documents with his signature.  There are no documents in his record showing the SSN he now claims is correct.

13.  On 1 December 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He completed 1 year, 1 month, and 4 days of net active service with 111 days of time lost.

14.  On 23 September 1977, the applicant was notified that after having carefully reviewed his record and the issues he presented, the Army Discharge Review Board concluded his discharge was proper and equitable, and voted to deny his request for an upgrade.

15.  The applicant provides a copy of his social security card which lists the number that he claims is correct.

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

	a.  Chapter 10 states 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 discharge (HD) or general discharge (GD) is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an HD 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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

	c.  Paragraph 3-7b provides that a GD 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 HD.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded because he was addicted to heroin and no one in his chain of command provided him any rehabilitation opportunities while on active duty.  He also contends his SSN is incorrectly listed in his military record and should be corrected.  There is insufficient evidence to support these claims.

2.  There is also no evidence showing the applicant took any action to address any personal problems through his chain of command, the chaplain or by any other means.  He had many legitimate avenues he could have used to address his alleged drug addiction without committing the AWOL offenses that led to his discharge.

3.  The evidence of record confirms he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge for being AWOL for 111 days.  After consulting with legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial to avoid possible incarceration.

4.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  His service did not support a GD or HD at the time of his discharge, nor would it be appropriate to upgrade his discharge now.

5.  With regard to the applicant's SSN, his record includes a DD Form 4 which shows the SSN disclosed upon his enlistment processing is the same SSN that he now claims is incorrect.  His record clearly lists this SSN on the documents that contained this information throughout his military service, and when required, he authenticated these documents with his signature.

6.  For historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records.  The data and information contained in those records should reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created.  In the absence of a showing of material error or injustice, there is a 
reluctance to recommend that those records be changed.  While it is understandable that the applicant desires his military records to now record the SSN that he claims is correct and as indicated on the evidence he provides, there is not a sufficiently compelling reason for compromising the integrity of the Army's records at this late date.

7.  Lacking convincing independent and verifiable evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the applicant's military service records, including the 
DD Form 214, were correct at the time and there is insufficient evidence to grant him relief in this case.

8.  The applicant is advised that a copy of this decisional document will be filed in her service record.  This should serve to clarify any questions or confusion in regard to the different SSNs and to satisfy his desire to have the SSN shown on the social security card he provides documented in his record.

9.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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)                                         AR20140019751





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019751



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1