IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009805 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ___X_____ ____X____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009805 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20140015991, dated 5 May 2015. ______________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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009805 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 reconsideration of earlier request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. 2. The applicant states: * he volunteered to join the Army and did his best; he thinks he was grouped with those who avoided the draft and ran off to Canada * he got sick while he was in training but the doctor did not examine him; he handed him a paper to give to his first sergeant; he did not learn of his medical condition until months later; and even then he still did not get proper treatment; he was given a muscle relaxer * he returned to his unit, still not in good health; he does not remember that he signed a paper of unfulfilled enlistment in June 1973; he loved photography and he spent weeks waiting for an answer regarding his specialty; he selected three specialties and still did not get an answer * he thought he was going to school for carpentry but he found out that he was going to electrical school instead and despite not asking to be in electrical school, he excelled in that field * he was assigned to Fort Benning where he questioned why he was not sent to the school that he elected but was told he should have worked that out at the previous training station * he took his military occupational specialty (MOS) test and around the 2-year mark, he wanted to reenlist and explained to the reenlistment sergeant that he did not get the training that he wanted * he wanted a year be taken off his 3-year enlistment because he did not receive the MOS training that he wanted; he received a negative answer, so he tried to fail his MOS test so he could be discharged * he wrote a letter of resignation that made its way to the lieutenant but the lieutenant only offered referral to a psychiatrist in return * even though he enlisted to serve our country, he was lied to about being too tall to fly helicopters and settled for repairing helicopters * he wore his tee shirt under his fatigues, which was the same shirt one would wear in the winter * he never had a heat stroke; so, he did not know what was wrong with him and the doctor never examined him; it was not until 1979 when he had another heat stroke and that is how he found out what he had in Alabama * the Post Reenlistment Office claimed that he signed a paper relinquishing his contract to train in MOS 67V (Helicopter Repairer) * when he signed up for another MOS, he was told to pick three and after selecting three MOS, he though he was going to Fort Leonard Wood for carpentry school but found out it was an electrical school * the unit he was assigned to did not give him the training he wanted and he received no extra training to pass his MOS; he felt the Army had let him down and he is trying to rectify the situation; he served proudly for 2 years and he wants that period corrected * he excelled in basic training; he also excelled in MOS training and he did his best at Fort Benning, rising to grade E-4; he even excelled after leaving the military starting out as a machine mechanic and ending as a plant engineer; all he wants is 2 years of honorable service 3. The applicant does not provide any additional evidence. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20140015991 on 5 May 2015. 2. The applicant provides new argument that warrants consideration by the Board. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 November 1972 for a 3-year term. He enlisted for training in MOS 67V (OH-58 Helicopter Repairer). He completed basic combat training at Fort Jackson, SC. He was sent to Fort Rucker, AL on or about 9 February 1973 for advanced individual training (AIT). 4. On 8 June 1973, at Fort Rucker, he signed a letter, Subject: Unfulfilled Enlistment Commitment, indicating that he had been counseled concerning his disqualification from MOS 67V and because of the disqualification, his enlistment commitment could not be fulfilled. He also indicated that he did not desire to waive his enlistment and submitted a selection of three schools for training. He indicated he understood that the school choices would be honored depending upon his qualifications and the availability of quotas. His choices were listed as follows: * 84B (Still Photographic Specialist) * 51B (Carpentry and Masonry Specialist) * 84C (Motion Picture Specialist) 5. On 21 June 1973, he was reassigned to Fort Leonard Wood, MO for training. He was assigned to Company C, 3rd Battalion, 4th AIT Brigade, for training in MOS 51R (Electrician). On 25 July 1973, he was awarded MOS 51R as his primary MOS (PMOS). He was then reassigned to Fort Benning, GA. 6. On 30 December 1974, at Fort Benning, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 25 November to 19 December 1974. 7. His service record contains a memorandum, Subject: Additional Information Concerning the Applicant, dated 17 October 1975. This memorandum stated that his military personnel records revealed that he: * enlisted on 27 November 1972 for helicopter repair training * attended helicopter repair training for 17 weeks, but did not complete the course; the reason for non-completion is not explained * signed a statement on 8 June 1973 waving his enlistment commitment; he was given the option of choosing three career groups * waited approximately 27 months to go AWOL because of an alleged broken enlistment commitment 8. On 5 March 1975, he departed his unit in an AWOL status and on 5 April 1975, he was dropped from the rolls as a deserter. He surrendered to military authorities in Westover, MA, on 27 August 1975. 9. On 29 August 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for one specification of being AWOL from 5 March to 27 August 1975. 10. On 2 October 1975, the applicant consulted with legal counsel who advised him of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or a dishonorable discharge, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of a request for discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood: * if the discharge request was approved he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate * he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration * he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws, and that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life * he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf 11. On 14 October 1975, his immediate and intermediate commanders recommended approval with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The immediate commander stated that the applicant: * had been medically examined and found qualified for separation * he had no mental defect, derangement, or an abnormal condition * he had 174 days of AWOL from Fort Benning 12. On 17 October 1974, following a legal review for legal sufficiency and consistent with the applicant's chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 6 November 1975, the applicant was accordingly discharged. 11. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 in lieu of trial by a court-martial with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and character of service as under other than honorable conditions. He completed 2 years, 5 months, and 18 days of total active service with 174 days of lost time. He was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal and Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar. 12. There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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: 1. The applicant contends, in effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because the Army violated his contractual agreement by denying him the training for which he enlisted. 2. The evidence of record shows he enlisted for training in MOS 67V, helicopter repairer. The evidence further shows he signed a statement/letter on 8 June 1973 waiving his enlistment commitment and indicating his desire to be trained in one of three alternative MOSs. He also signed the letter indicating he understood that the school choices would be honored depending upon his qualifications and the availability of quotas. 3. It is unknown why he did not attend training for one of the three MOSs selected. It is possible training seats were not available or that he was not qualified for the selected MOS. It is equally possible his aptitude scores were not sufficient for the MOS selected. Regardless, the Board is not privy to the decision made some 45 years ago in selecting him for training in MOS 51R and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, administrative regularity is presumed. 4. The applicant's records show he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He voluntarily, willingly, and in writing requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. 5. Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. This misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory. His service did not rise to the level required for an honorable or a general discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009805 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009805 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2