IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 January 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100016760 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to an honorable discharge. 2. He states he should have not been discharged UOTHC. 3. He provides no additional documents in support of this application. 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's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 July 1975. 3. His disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two occasions for the following offenses: * two incidents of being drunk and disorderly * assaulting a noncommissioned officer * destroying three glass window panes valued at $10.00 4. A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 15 November 1977, lists the following charges preferred against him: * 7 October 1977 for disobeying a lawful order and unlawfully entering the garage of the Army Air Force Exchange Service * 23 October 1977 for being drunk and disorderly in a public place 5. On 21 November 1977, he 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 a UOTHC discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, he voluntarily requested 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. 6. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood by requesting a 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 or dishonorable discharge. He further acknowledged he understood that if his request were 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, and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. 7. On 22 November 1977, his company, battalion, and brigade commanders, respectively, recommended approval with a UOTHC discharge. 8. On 29 November 1977, the separation authority directed that he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service and that he receive a UOTHC discharge. 9. On 2 December 1977, he was discharged in the rank of private/pay grade  E-1. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) issued to him shows he completed a total of 2 years, 4 months, and 8 days of active duty service. 10. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 11. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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, of the loss of Veterans Administration benefits, and of the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. 12. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. 13. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial. His record shows he was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 require an admission of guilt to the offenses charged and are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The evidence shows he voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. 2. His record includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment on two occasions for being drunk and disorderly, disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer, and unlawful entry. Based on this record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. His misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory and does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge to honorable or general under honorable conditions. 3. The available evidence shows he 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, his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. 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) AR20100016760 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1