IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 28 July 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150000286


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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

2.  The applicant states that it has been over 25 years and he would like his discharge upgraded if possible.

3.  The applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

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.  Following prior active and reserve service in the U.S. Air Force the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 September 1983.  He held military occupational specialty 31V (Unit Communications Maintainer).  

3.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows he served in Okinawa and Alaska.  The highest rank he attained was specialist four/E-4.  He was awarded the Air Force Overseas Service Ribbon, Air Force Training Ribbon, Air Force Good Conduct Medal (1st Award), Army Service Ribbon, Army Achievement Medal, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon with Numeral "1", and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle and Grenade Bars.

4.  On 27 May 1989, charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 16 February 1989 to 19 February 1989 and from 20 March 1989 to 26 May 1989.

5.  On 8 June 1989, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He acknowledged he understood the elements of the charges against him and admitted he was guilty of at least one of the offenses which authorized a punitive discharge.  He also acknowledged he understood he might receive a discharge under conditions other than honorable, which would deprive him of many or all Army benefits, and he might be ineligible for veterans' benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA).  He acknowledged he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he were issued an under other than honorable discharge.  He also indicated he had received legal advice, but his request for discharge had been made voluntarily and it reflected his own free will.  He indicated he would not submit a statement on his own behalf.

6.  His unit commander recommended, in effect, trial by court-martial and disapproval of the discharge request.

7.  His battalion and brigade commanders recommended approval of the discharge with issuance of a UOTHC discharge.

8.  On 30 June 1989, the separation authority approved the request and directed a UOTHC discharge.

9.  On 12 July 1989, the applicant was so discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), 
chapter 10.  

10.  There is no evidence he requested an upgrade of his discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 10 provides that 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 or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC was considered appropriate at the time.

	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.  The applicant provided no evidence to support his request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge.  

2.  His request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with legal counsel, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge he might have received.  His service was appropriately characterized by the nature of his offenses and the circumstances of his separation and does not warrant an upgrade to honorable or general under honorable conditions.

3.  The U. S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  
4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the 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 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)                                         AR20110020828



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150000286



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1