IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 September 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150001207


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 his character of discharge be upgraded from an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable or general discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was under the influence of alcohol and used bad judgement when he attempted to help his friend.  In recent years he has managed to turn his life around and is presently training to become a substance abuse counselor.  

3.  The applicant provides four 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 27 August 1982.  He reenlisted on 2 July 1985 and was promoted to sergeant on 4 September 1987.

3.  On 17 March 1988, general court-martial charges were preferred for disobeying a lawful order and hindering in the apprehension or trial of another individual by hiding a loaded weapon used by the other individual in the commission of an aggravated assault with a loaded weapon. 

4.  On 20 April 1988, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for discharge for the good of the service (in lieu of trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge).  He acknowledged that he if he were found guilty of the charges or lesser included charges he could be discharged with a punitive discharge and that, if the request was accepted, he could receive a discharge UOTHC and be furnished a UOTHC Discharge Certificate.  He acknowledged that such a discharge would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, and that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a UOTHC discharge.

5.  The applicant waived his administrative rights and declined to submit a personal statement and undergo a separation medical examination.  

6.  On 21 April 1988, the general court-martial convening authority approved the separation request and directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and separated with a UOTHC discharge.

7.  On 29 April 1988, the applicant was discharged UOTHC.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he completed a total of 5 years, 8 months, and 3 days of net active creditable service this period with no lost time.

8.  The applicant submitted in support of his request: 

   a.  A 26 September 2014 letter from Dr. D____ S____ of the Phoenix House who states the applicant completed an 8-month substance abuse program and participated in the Veterans Outreach Program.  He was described as a very positive individual who was an example to his peers.  
   
   
   
   b.  In his 20 December 2014 letter, Reverend B____ A____ described the applicant as a person of very good moral character.  He has been a regular church member since 2012, volunteering his time in church outreach programs.  He is hard working and dedicated, never leaving a job unfinished.

   c.  A 5 December 2014 letter from the Senior Counselor, Reality House, indicates the applicant successfully completed the outpatient and residential rehabilitation program.
   
   d.  A 29 July 2014 letter from the OTI Training Assistant Director states the author had known the applicant for a month and worked with him in his capacity as a student advisor and practica teacher.  He found the applicant to be capable of handling any situation with thoughtfulness and maturity.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It provides the following:

	a.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty. 

	c.  Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  The applicant's recent efforts toward rehabilitation are commendable.  However, post-service conduct alone is generally not a sufficient basis upon which to upgrade a properly issued discharge.  The Board considers each case on its merits.

3.  In this case, the applicant has provided no evidence that would justify an upgrade.  Therefore, it would not be inappropriate to grant the applicant's request for either an honorable or a general discharge.

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)                                         AR20150000582



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150001207



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1