IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 August 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120002904 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a general discharge. 2. The applicant states that at the time, he was under a considerable amount of stress and was not mature enough to handle it. He states he would like to go to work for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence. 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 7 August 1979. He completed training as a combat engineer. 3. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on four separate occasions between 25 March 1980 and 29 May 1980 for the following offenses: * behaving with disrespect towards his superior commissioned officer * failure to go to his appointed place of duty * failure to obey a lawful order 4. The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not on file. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 4 September 1980, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, "conduct triable by court-martial." 5. A review of the available records do not show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 6. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 provides 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 VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. A discharge under other than honorable conditions would normally be furnished an individual who is discharged for the good of the service. 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 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's contentions have been noted. 2. Youth and/or immaturity are not sufficient justifications to warrant an upgrade of his discharge. His records suggest that charges were pending against him for numerous acts of indiscipline. His records also suggest that rather than stand trial by court-martial he elected to be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 3. His desire to gain employment with the VA has been noted. In accordance with the applicable regulation, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s request should be denied. 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) AR20120002904 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120002904 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1