IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  29 January 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140008638 


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 to honorable. 

2.  The applicant states he believes the discharge is unjust because he is a different person today.  He has changed his life and is now a respected businessman, citizen, and church member as attested to by the enclosed statements.  He also says – 

* He has changed his life and his life style and he has found the Lord
* He was told that the discharge would be changed 6 months after he was discharged

3.  The applicant provides – 

* a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge)
* a copy of a certificate as an Ordained Minister
* three letters of support

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 8 September 1967 and never completed training.  He was convicted by two special court-martial for being absent without leave (AWOL) offenses and by a third for willful disobedience of a captain.

3.  Subsequently he was AWOL twice more.  The discharge package is no longer complete; however, available documentation shows the discharge authority approved the applicant's separation with an undesirable discharge due to a voluntary discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

4.  On 19 September 1969, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In just over 2 years the applicant had acquired 522 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  He had 7 months and 8 days of creditable service.

5.  On 2 September 1977 and 30 June 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's requests to change the character and reason for the discharge. 

6.  In support of his request the applicant submitted three character reference letters – 
 
a.  A friend states that she has known the applicant for over 12 years.  He has 
always been there for her.  He helped her get a job and turn her life around.  He helped her learn that no matter how bad a situation seems one can always make it better.

b.  Another describes the applicant as a great friend and credits the applicant 
with saving his life by helping him to stop drinking.  He describes the applicant as a living example.

c.  A minister states he has known the applicant for many years as a model of 
integrity and good character

7.  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 Soldier whose conduct rendered him triable by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could request a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of a trial.  The regulation required that there have been no element of coercion involved in the submission of such a request and that the applicant was provided an opportunity to consult with counsel.  The Soldier was required to sign the request indicating he understood that he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions, the adverse nature of such a discharge, and the possible consequences thereof.  The regulation required that the request be forwarded through channels to the general court-martial convening authority.  An undesirable discharge certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. 

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a states 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 states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

8.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR.  Paragraph 2-9 states the ABCMR begins consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.

2.  The character reference letters are noted and the fact that the applicant is a good friend and a respected member of his community are acknowledged.  However, these factors are irrelevant to the characterization of the discharge of an individual. 
3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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)                                         AR20140008638





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140008638



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1