IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 February 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150007710 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 (UD) to general, under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states he is submitting this application to repudiate the Army’s decision that his service was dishonorable. He was told it was undesirable under honorable conditions. He enlisted during the war in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN). His older brother was in the RVN when he completed basic training. His mother was extremely upset because both of her sons would be in the RVN at the same time. She was doing everything she could to get him out of the service. She was obsessed with getting him out of the service. This caused him to become alarmed about her well-being. He was held over after completing basic training and put in the barracks alone. He was not allowed to do anything. After 3 weeks of isolation he was sent for advanced training which he completed satisfactorily. Again, he was put on hold with nothing to do. He was at his wits end and became depressed. He went back home to help his mother. His superiors would not give him leave, but he went anyway. When he returned to the military, he was given an other than honorable discharge. He went absent without leave (AWOL) because of his deep concern for his mother and his depressed state of mind. He hopes the Board will reconsider the Army’s decision. 3. The applicant provides no 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 6 November 1968, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed initial training as a water supply specialist. 3. On 5 November 1969, the applicant was convicted by special court-martial for being AWOL from 6 April to 9 May 1969 and from 6 June to 6 October 1969 (about 174 days). His sentence included 4 months in confinement. He was released from confinement on or about 17 December 1969. 4. On 22 January 1970, the applicant was released to civilian authorities on a charge of forgery. He was subsequently tried in district court and sentenced to confinement for a period of 1 to 10 years. 5. On 17 September 1970, a board of officers carefully considered the evidence before it and found the applicant should be discharged from the service due to civil conviction. The board recommended he receive an UD. 6. On 5 October 1970, the applicant's commanding general approved the recommendation that he be eliminated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 due to conviction by civilian court. The commander directed the issuance of an UD. 7. On 12 October 1970, the applicant was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 shows he was administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, with separation program number 284, for misconduct and conviction by a civil court. His service was characterized as under conditions other than honorable. He completed a total of 6 months and 13 days of creditable active service and he had approximately 510 days of lost time. 8. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. 9. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 33 of the regulation provided that members convicted by civil authorities would be considered for separation. An UD was normally considered appropriate. 10. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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. 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 contends that his military records should be corrected by upgrading his UD to general, under honorable conditions because of his depressed state of mind and his deep concern for his mother. 2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. The type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case. 3. Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct for Army personnel. This misconduct and lost time rendered his service unsatisfactory. Accordingly, there is no justifiable basis for upgrading his character 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 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) AR20150007710 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1