IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  20 August 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150000291 


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 an upgrade of his undesirable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was often harassed and teased by his peers and superiors.  He went to his first sergeant and commander but they never did anything about it.  He felt alone, scared, and threatened so he had no choice but to go absent without leave (AWOL) in January 1985.  He was eventually arrested in June 1986, for endangerment to the welfare of a child and placed back under military control.  

3.  The applicant provides:

* a self-authored statement
* 3 DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214)

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 21 March 1977.  He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 75D (Personnel Records Specialist).  On 27 March 1981, he was honorably released from active duty at the completion of required service in the rank/grade of specialist-five (SP5)/E-5.

3.  The applicant's record contains a DD Form 214 which shows he entered active duty in the Army National Guard on 12 August 1981.  On 31 October 1982, he was honorably released from active duty upon completion of required service in the rank/grade of SP5/E-5.

4.  On 28 June 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed training and he was awarded MOS 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist).

5.  His record contains a Personnel Control Facility Interview Sheet, dated         24 June 1987, in which the applicant states he was having problems dealing with his job and fellow Soldiers.  They kept teasing and harassing him because he wasn't capable of driving a 2 and a half ton truck.  He also stated he could not deal with field duty or military life.

6.  On 26 June 1987, charges were preferred against the applicant for, without authority, absenting himself from his unit for the period 14 January 1985 to        23 June 1987.

7.  On 26 June 1987, he consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of discharge under other than honorable conditions if his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial was approved, and of the procedures and rights available to him. Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.

8.  In his request for discharge, he indicated he was making this request of his own free will and he had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person.  He also indicated he understood that by requesting discharge he was admitting guilt to the charges against him or of a lesser-included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge.  He further acknowledged he understood if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  He also stated that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation and he had no desire to perform further military service.  He chose not to submit a statement on his behalf.

9.  His immediate commander recommended approval of his discharge action with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

10.  On 27 July 1987, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

11.  He was discharged on 7 August 1987.  His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  His DD Form 214 further shows he completed 7 months and 30 days of net active service during this period with time lost for the period 14 January 1985 to 22 June 1987.

12.  There is no evidence indicating he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

13.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement in which he claims upon being assigned to Fort Sill, OK, in addition to his duties as a Supply Specialist he had to perform command maintenance on the supply vehicle.  He states he knew nothing about fixing vehicles or changing tires.  He claims the Soldiers harassed and kept him up all night because he was not mechanically inclined.

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

	a.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

	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 states 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's contention that his undesirable discharge should be upgraded was carefully considered; however, it appears to lack merit.  

2.  His records show he was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

3.  The evidence shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.  There is no evidence of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.  There is no documentary evidence corroborating his claim that he went AWOL because he had been threatened by another Soldier.

4.  The applicant's record of service shows he was absent from his unit without authority for the period 14 January 1985 to 23 June 1987.  Based on this record of indiscipline, the applicant's misconduct renders his service unsatisfactory.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be insufficient evidence to support 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)                                         AR20150000291





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150000291



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1