BOARD DATE: 17 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004814 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, in effect, an upgrade of his under conditions other than honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states he takes full responsibility for his actions. As a son of divorced parents, he was determined to make something of his life. His family was dysfunctional, he was 17 years old, and his 16 year-old girlfriend was pregnant so he joined the Army. He thought he had escaped his situation but after advanced individual training, he returned home to be an assistant recruiter for 30 days, where he was once again swallowed up by his family. Neither his family nor his girlfriend's family provided him any support or encouragement. After he left the Army, he got a job working as a laborer at Great Lakes Steel. He worked various jobs there and advanced to be a supervisor; after 38 years, he retired. To this day, his only regret is his separation from the U.S. Army. 3. The applicant provides eight (8) third-party letters of support and a Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS) Form 1910 (Child Abuse/Neglect Central Registry Check). 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 15 February 1972. He completed his initial entry training and was awarded military occupational specialties 13A (Field Artillery Basic). The highest rank/grade he attained during his period of military service was private first class/E-3. 3. Upon his completion of initial entry training, he was eventually assigned to Battery A, 2nd Battalion, 11th Field Artillery Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, in Hawaii. 4. His unit reported him absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 3 November 1972 through on or about 3 December 1972. It is unclear if this period of lost time resulted in any nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 5. His unit reported him AWOL on 16 January 1973 and he was dropped from the rolls of the Army. He remained AWOL until on or about 19 March 1973 when he was returned to military control at the U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Riley, Kansas. 6. He received NJP on 4 April 1973 for absenting himself from his assigned unit from on or about 16 January 1973 through on or about 19 March 1973. 7. He was reassigned to Service Battery, 1st Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Armored Division at Fort Hood, Texas. He reported to this unit on 18 April 1973. 8. His unit reported him AWOL on 1 May 1973 and he was dropped from the rolls of the Army. He remained AWOL until on or about 2 August 1973, when he was returned to military control at the U.S. Army PCF, Fort Riley, Kansas. 9. Court-martial charges were preferred against him on 10 August 1973 for absenting himself from his unit without authority (AWOL) from on or about 1 May 1973 through on or about 2 August 1973. 10. He consulted with legal counsel on 16 August 1973 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 undesirable discharge, and the procedures and rights that were available to him. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. 11. In his request for discharge, he indicated he understood that if his request for discharge was accepted, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He indicated he had been advised as to the possible effect of an undesirable discharge and understood that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may 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 elected to make no statement in his behalf. 12. The separation authority approved his request for discharge on 24 August 1973 and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 13. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 14 September 1973. The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and his character of service was under conditions other than honorable. His DD Form 214 further confirms he was credited with 192 days of lost time due to being AWOL. 14. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 15. He provides 8 third-party letters of support from his spouse and members of the church for which he is a pastor. These letters speak to his character, integrity and supreme sense of honesty. He further provides a Michigan DHS Child Abuse/Neglect Central Registry Check, dated 28 September 2011, indicating at that time there was no record of him being identified as a perpetrator of child abuse and/or neglect. 16. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. b. 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. c. 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 VA 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 an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his under conditions other than honorable discharge was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request. 2. His record indicates he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. 3. The available evidence shows he was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time. There is no indication of procedural errors that would have jeopardized his rights. All requirements of law and regulation were met, and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. His discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. 4. Based on his record of indiscipline, including several extended periods of AWOL throughout his period of military service, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. This misconduct also rendered his service unsatisfactory. 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) AR20100014558 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004814 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1