BOARD DATE:	  1 September 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140021131 


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 reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he did not know what a draft was when he received the letter from the U.S. Government.  His mother read the letter and told him he had to go into the Army.  He told his mother he wasn't going into the Army because God said obey Him and serve only God.  However, he obeyed his parents because that is written in the Bible.  He was discharged from the military under duress.  Although he had several charges of being absent without leave (AWOL), he always came back on his own.  He never received a court-martial nor did he engage in any fight that tore up the clubs.  His superiors told him he could to Mannheim and bust bricks or get an undesirable discharge.  He told them "he did not ask to be in this war" so when given the choice of busting bricks for something he did not do and taking an undesirable discharge, he took the discharge.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* Proclamation, dated 22 December 2011, by the mayor of Chicago proclaiming 1-15 January 2012 to be Moorish American Week in Chicago
* The Moorish National Republic, Moorish Divine and National Movement of the World International Proclamation



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20130013915, on 22 April 2014.

2.  He provided new evidence that merits consideration by the Board.

3.  On 10 February 1970, he was inducted into the Army of the United States.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63C (Track Vehicle Mechanic).  On 30 August 1970, he was promoted to specialist four/pay grade E-4.

4.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on:

* 25 November 1970, for participating in a breach of the peace by wrongfully engaging in a fist fight in in the television room of Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry with a private first class
* 9 February 1971, for being AWOL from 20 January - 8 February 1971

5.  On 26 February 1971, he was assigned to the Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 3rd Battalion, 61st Artillery, in Germany.

6.  On 19 May 1971, the applicant received a psychiatric evaluation by a major of the Medical Corps.  The examiner stated:

	a.  The applicant had made it quite clear for some time that he wanted out of the military and blatantly stated that he would use any means at his disposal to obtain same.  He viewed his drug orientation as his response to not wanting to be in the military and in Germany.  

	b.  Undoubtedly the applicant was a heavy user of hash and possibly acid.  His desire for psychiatric evaluation was solely manipulative to obtain his discharge.  There was no evidence of psychosis or other indication for psychiatric intervention.  The unit would need to decide on rehabilitative potential and use his performance as their parameter for decision making.

	c.  The applicant was an immature and anti-socially oriented young man, who planned to use every device at his disposal to obtain military separation.  Included in this were threats to "do others harm" but this did not stem from a psychotic illness, but rather a manifestation of immaturity and an ultimate desperate attempt to separate.  

	d.  The examiner recommended the applicant be returned to duty.  Depending on the applicant's performance in the future, the unit should consider him cleared for administrative separation should they find such action necessary.

7.  On 16 May 1971, after failing to return from leave, he was declared in an AWOL status.  On 14 June 1971, he was dropped from Army rolls.  On 4 August 1971, he voluntarily returned and special court-martial action was initiated.

8.  His discharge processing package was not in his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) and not available for review.

9.  On 29 November 1971, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge.  He completed 1 year, 6 months, and 10 days of net active service that was characterized as under conditions other than honorable.  He had 
99 days of time lost.

10.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations.

11.  Neither the Proclamation, dated 22 December 2011, by the mayor of Chicago or the Moorish National Republic, Moorish Divine and National Movement of the World International Proclamation provided any substantive evidence that would excuse the applicant’s period of AWOL or his other misconduct.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative 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 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 an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service.  

	b.  An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would have been clearly inappropriate.  

	c.  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.  Neither the Proclamation, dated 22 December 2011, by the mayor of Chicago or the Moorish National Republic, Moorish Divine and National Movement of the World International Proclamation submitted by the applicant provided any substantive evidence that would excuse his period of AWOL or his other misconduct.

2.  In the absence of his charge sheet, it is not possible to determine the extent of his charges or whether additional charges were included.

3.  Although the applicant's separation package is not available, in order for him to be discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, he would have been charged with an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge.  

4.  Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, it is presumed that the type of discharge and the reason for discharge were appropriate considering his overall record of service. 

5.  His previous acceptance of NJP on two occasions and the 99 days of lost time show his service to be unsatisfactory.  There is no basis on which to grant an upgrade his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge or 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20130013915, dated 22 April 2014.



      _______ _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)                                         AR20140021131



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140021131



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1