BOARD DATE:	  16 July 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140020567 


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 upgrade of his discharge.

2.  The applicant states he:

* served in the Army for a little over 3 years and the discharge he received was due to an isolated incident 3 weeks prior to his discharge
* received several letters of commendation and a Humanitarian Service Medal
* made the wrong decision by not divulging information at the time 
* accepted responsibility for something he did not do or know about
* has been penalized for the past 32 years

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence 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 Regular Army on 4 June 1979.  

3.  His record contains his disciplinary history which shows his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 July to 
16 July 1981.

4.  The specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing are not available for review.  However, the available evidence includes a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that contains the authority and reason for his discharge, which shows he was discharged on 22 September 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, with an administrative discharge – conduct triable by court-martial, with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he completed a total of 3 years, 3 months and 4 days of active service and had 15 days of lost time.  

5.  On 9 March 1992, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's petition for an upgrade his discharge.  The ADRB's prehearing review shows that on:

	a.  18 July 1982, the applicant was charged with making a false statement on 19 March 1982 and stealing organizational equipment valued at $180.00 on 
7 June 1982.

	b.  21 August 1982, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service. 

	c.  31 August 1982, the unit, intermediate, and senior intermediate commanders recommended approval with a less than honorable conditions discharge. 

	d.  31 August 1982, the approval authorized approved the applicants discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

	e.  22 September 1982, the applicant was discharged.



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

	a.  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, type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Department of Veterans Affairs benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  A discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions would normally be given an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service.

	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 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.  Although the applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing, it does contain a properly-constituted
DD Form 214 that identifies the authority, reason, and the characterization of the applicant's service.  Additionally, the ADRB proceedings outline the general facts and circumstances of his discharge.

2.  His record shows he had one court-martial charge, one Article 15 under UCMJ, and 15 days lost time.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary 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)                                         AR20140020567





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140020567



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1