IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  11 August 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150000357 


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 that his undesirable discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states that there was no error or injustice in his case.  He was young and not a very responsible person; however, he got the help he needed and has become a better person and man over the years and is now trying to right all of wrongs in his life as he has become a productive member of society.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation 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.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 July 1974 for a period of      3 years; assignment to the 1st Infantry Division at Fort Riley, Kansas; and on-the-job training as a food service specialist.  He completed his basic training at 
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and was transferred to Fort Riley for his first and only assignment. 

3.  On 9 January 1975, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2-5 January 1975.

4.  On 30 May 1975, charges were preferred against the applicant for wrongfully assaulting another Soldier and for communicating a threat to do more bodily harm.

5.  On 24 June 1975 after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He indicated he was making the request of his own free will without coercion from anyone and that he was aware of the implications attached to his request.  He also admitted he was guilty of the charges against him or of lesser-included offenses which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He acknowledged he understood he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) and he might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

6.  The appropriate authority (a major general) approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, on        1 August 1975 and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 

7.  On 26 August 1975, he was discharged UOTHC under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He completed 
1 year and 23 days of total active service with 4 days of lost time due to AWOL.

8.  There is no evidence in the available records to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that Board’s 
15-year statute of limitations.

9.  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 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, the 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.  A discharge UOTHC was normally considered appropriate.

	a.  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.

	b.  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's voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate under the circumstances.

2.  After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence before a trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a felony conviction on his record.
 
3.  The applicant's contentions are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief under the circumstances, especially given the serious nature of the charges against him and his otherwise undistinguished record of service.  His service simply did not rise to the level of an honorable or a general discharge.

4.  In view of the foregoing evidence, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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 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)                                         AR20150000357





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150000357



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1