IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 May 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110001461 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 he was young and did not know any better. He adds that he never received the military occupational specialty (MOS) he wanted. He wanted to be a full-time mechanic. He was young and they stuck him the motor pool where he was not doing anything productive. 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his 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 military personnel records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 November 1974 at 18 years of age. He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and he was awarded MOS 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic). The highest rank/grade he attained was pay grade E-2. 3. On 19 August 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 19 May 1975 until on or about 16 June 1975 and from 19 June 1975 until on or about 14 August 1975. 4. On 19 August 1975 after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10. He indicated he was making the request of his own free will without coercion from anyone and he was aware of the implications attached to his request. He acknowledged he understood he could receive an undesirable discharge and he might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge. He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. In addition, the applicant was advised he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he were issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits. 5. On 29 August 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 6. On 19 September 1975, the applicant was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He completed 7 months and 22 days of total active service with 84 days of lost time due to AWOL. 7. 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. 8. 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, 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. An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. 9. 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. 10. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states 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's contention that his discharge should be upgraded because he was young and he wanted to work full time in his MOS was carefully considered and found to be insufficient in merit. There is no evidence in his military record and the applicant did not provide any evidence to support his allegations. 2. Records show the applicant enlisted at age 18 and he was 19 years of age at the time of his offenses. However, there is no evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligations. 3. The applicant was discharged for the good of service and in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. In connection with such a discharge, he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable with a punitive discharge under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Procedurally, he was required to consult with defense counsel and to voluntarily request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. 4. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. The record contains no indication of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized his rights. The quality of the applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance expected of Army personnel. Therefore, there is no basis for granting 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 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) AR20110001461 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110001461 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1