IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  29 September 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150002964


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 correction of his military records by upgrading his undesirable discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he wants an honorable characterization of service for himself, his child, and his grandchildren.  He contends he was a teenager in love.  He was immature.  He got married knowing he was going into the Army.  He has lived with his shame for more than 40 years.  He asks for forgiveness.  He was just a dumb kid who had a wife who was messing around with his friends.  Jealousy got the best of him.  He wishes he could do it all over.  Now when he sees a Soldier, he will thank him for his service but will privately feel ashamed for his own misconduct.

3.  The applicant has not provided any additional documentation.

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.  On 3 November 1970, the applicant at the age of 18 years and 1 month enlisted in the Regular Army.  He had completed 9 years of schooling in 1968.  His aptitude test scores reflect an average ability.  His Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) placed him in Group III.  He was assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky for basic combat training.

3.  A DA Form 20B (Insert Sheet to DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) Record of Court-Martial Conviction)) shows that the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for violation of Article 86, Uniform code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without Leave (AWOL) from on or about 16 November 1970 to 25 March 1971.  He was confined for 4 months and forfeited $60.00 pay per month for 2 months.

4.  The applicant was subsequently AWOL from 26 September 1971 to 29 April 1972.

5.  On 8 May 1972, charges were preferred under the UCMJ for the applicant’s period of AWOL discussed in the previous paragraph.

6.  On or about 15 May 1972, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.

7.  On 15 May 1972, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also made a statement wherein he discussed his reasons for enlisting in the Army, his loss of civilian employment due to sniffing glue, and problems between him and his wife due to being separated because of his military service.

8.  On 22 May 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed issuance of a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate).  On 31 May 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He had completed 5 months and 3 days of creditable active duty service.

9.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

   a.  Chapter 10 of that regulation 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.  An undesirable discharge was 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 (emphasis added), 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 contends that his military record should be corrected by upgrading his undesirable discharge to honorable.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time of his service is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  Although he did not complete high school, his test scores and AFQT indicate he had average abilities to perform as a Soldier.  He was no less competent than many other individuals who had satisfactorily completed their military schooling and enlistment obligations.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural error which could have jeopardized his rights.  His lengthy period of lost time rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel and he does not warrant an upgrade.    


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)                                         AR20130021516



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150002964



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1