IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  21 July 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140020853 


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 (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states he was implicated in but never charged with fraud.  He was only guilty by association.  After 43 years he wants to be proud to have served.  His mistake was electing to take an early out because he was young and dumb.  He states there were 12 people implicated in the incident and all he did was associate with them.  He has never been in trouble of any kind.  

3.  The applicant provides no supporting documentation. 

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 was inducted on 12 June 1970, completed training, and was awarded military occupational specialty 71H (Personnel Specialist).  The highest rank he held was private first class (E-3).

3.  The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on –

* 18 March 1971 for failure to comply with general orders
* 21 June 1971 for failure to go to his appointed place of duty
* 25 August 1971 for being absent from his place of duty, improper dress for duty, and being insubordinate in attitude and deportment

4.  On 30 September 1971, the Criminal Investigation Division initiated an investigation naming the applicant and two other Soldiers on the charges of fraud by selling false identification (ID) cards, wrongful use of a false ID card, and possession of false ID cards. 

5.  Formal charges were preferred and a general court-martial was recommended.  (The formal charge sheet is not of record.)

6.  On 2 November 1971, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for discharge for the good of the service (in lieu of trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge).  He acknowledged that such a discharge would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, and that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

7.  The discharge authority approved the applicant's separation and directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and discharged with a UD.

8.  The applicant was discharged on 29 November 1971 with a UD.  

9.  On 15 November 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge and did not deem it appropriate to change his narrative reason for discharge.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 states:


   a.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  At the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD.
   
	b.  A general discharge is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an HD. 

	c.  A UD discharge was issued when there was one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from conduct expected of a Soldier.  

	d.  An HD is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  In addition to three NJPs, the available evidence shows the applicant was charged with selling false ID cards, wrongful use of a false ID card, and possession of false ID cards.  Court-martial charges were preferred but the applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial.  

3.  The applicant offers no rationale for an upgrade except for the mere passage of time and that he is a respected member of the community.  The mere passage of time is insufficient in and of itself to warrant a change of the applicant's discharge, especially in light of the fact that his military record is devoid of significant mitigating service.


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)                                         AR20140020853



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140020853



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1