IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 January 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150007758 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. 2. The applicant states he was a "dumb kid" who married a 15-year old girl and got her pregnant. He wanted to be with her at the time. He has since become an ordained minister and a good citizen. He retired from a power plant after 31 years and he ministers in a nursing home. 3. The applicant provides his ministry card and singing group card. 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 service records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 December 1971. He held an infantry specialty. 3. On 11 July 1972, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL). 4. He served in Germany from 31 October 1972 to 5 January 1973. He was awarded or authorized the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar. 5. On 6 January 1973, he departed his unit in an AWOL status and on 6 February 1973, he was dropped from the rolls as a deserter. He returned to military control at Fort Hood, TX on 14 February 1973. 6. On 7 April 1973, he departed his Fort Hood unit in an AWOL status and on 7 May 1973, he was dropped from the Army rolls as a deserter. He was apprehended by civil authorities in Rockport, IN on 14 September 1973. He returned to military control on 24 September 1973. 7. The complete facts and circumstances of the applicant's discharge processing are not available for review by the Board. However, his record contains: a. SO Number 203, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, KY on 16 October 1973 discharging him from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, effective 19 October 1973 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. b. A DD Form 214 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) that shows he was discharged on 19 October 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of a court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. He was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. This form also shows he completed 1 year, 3 months, and 23 days of net active service and he had 210 days of lost time. 8. There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UD was considered appropriate at the time the applicant was discharged. b. 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. 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's record is void of the complete facts and circumstances that led to his discharge. However, his record contains separation orders and a DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 19 October 1973 under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 in lieu of a trial by court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 2. The issuance of a discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, required the applicant to voluntarily, willingly, and in writing request discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. It is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant provided no information that would indicate the contrary. Further, it is presumed that the applicant's discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. 3. The evidence shows his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. His misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory. There is insufficient evidence to upgrade his discharge to an honorable or a general discharge. 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) AR20150007758 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150007758 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1