IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011622 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: 7 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011622 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 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011622 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable. 2. The applicant states he wants to change his general discharge to an honorable discharge. 3. The applicant provides a letter he wrote to the Vice President of the United States, dated 2 April 2015. 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 Army National Guard on 15 November 1974 for a period of 6 years. 3. On 19 November 1977, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from four scheduled unit training assemblies on 17-18 September 1977. 4. The DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 29 March 1978, subject: Request for Involuntary Order to Active Duty (Applicant), shows: a. The applicant was AWOL from four scheduled unit training assemblies conducted on 17-18 September 1977. He informed a member of his unit that he didn't think he would be at drill because he was going to the beach. He was confronted by his commander about this; however, he told the court-martialing officer he had car trouble and was stranded at the beach. b. He was AWOL from three of five unit training assemblies conducted on 10-12 March 1978. 5. On 24 September 1979, he was discharged under honorable conditions (general) from the Army National Guard and assigned to the U.S. Army Reserve with concurrent order to active duty. 6. On 25 September 1979, he was ordered to active duty for a period of 17 months and 15 days due to unsatisfactory participation as a member of a Reserve Component. 7. He was subsequently AWOL from 5 November 1979 to 8 January 1981. On 21 January 1981, charges were preferred against him for the AWOL period. 8. On 21 January 1981, he consulted with counsel and 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. He acknowledged that by submitting his request for discharge he was guilty of the charge(s) against him or of (a) lesser-included offense(s) that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He indicated he understood he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and issued a UOTHC Discharge Certificate, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. He acknowledged he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of a discharge UOTHC. He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf. 9. On 17 February 1981, the separation authority approved his voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of a DD Form 794A (Discharge Certificate UOTHC). 10. On 2 March 1981, he was discharged UOTHC for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. 11. In May 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for a discharge upgrade. 12. He provided a self-authored letter to the Vice President of the United States, dated 2 April 2015, wherein he stated: a. He received a general discharge from the Army 35 years ago when he should have received an honorable discharge. This was a direct result of him going to then-Senator B____ for help with a legal matter. Senator B____ promised to help him, but instead he disregarded him. b. He enlisted in the Army National Guard in 1974, he made the rank of specialist four, and he went to his drills religiously. On 17-18 September 1977, he went to his monthly drill, but he was marked absent for the weekend. Other Soldiers in his unit vouched for him being present both days. He thought the problem was resolved, but he was wrong. He was ordered to active duty as a result of missing a weekend drill. c. He went through his chain of command and spoke with military lawyers, but got nowhere. He decided to see Senator B____ and was grateful to speak with him. Senator B____ told him he could fix his problem, but he would have to follow orders and report for active duty. He packed his bags and reported to Fort Benning. d. He expected to be at Fort Benning for a short time until Senator B____ resolved his problem. He never heard a single word from Senator B____. He eventually learned Senator B____ had done nothing to help him and had no plans to do so. After learning this, he packed his bags and left Fort Benning and went home. Now he was legally AWOL. Approximately 1 1/2 years later, he was caught hitchhiking. He was arrested as a deserter and placed in military confinement. He was offered three options: serve his time on active duty in the U.S. Army, serve his time in a military prison, or receive a general discharge. Given these choices, the general discharge seemed like the right choice. e. He is now 60 years old, has had three heart attacks, and his health is failing. He is tired of living with a general discharge. He wants to set the record straight. 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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. b. 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. 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 he received a general discharge. However, the evidence of record shows his service was characterized as UOTHC when he was separated from active duty in 1981. 2. Although he now claims he attended the scheduled unit training assemblies on 17-18 September 1977, when confronted about being AWOL in 1978 he told his commander he had car trouble and was stranded at the beach. 3. The evidence of record does not support his contention that he was ordered to active duty for missing one weekend drill. The evidence of record shows he was ordered to active duty due to unsatisfactory participation for missing four scheduled unit training assemblies in September 1977 and three of five scheduled unit training assemblies in March 1978. 4. His voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. He had an opportunity to submit a statement wherein he could have voiced his concerns; however, he elected not to do so. 5. His record of service included one summary court-martial conviction and 429 days of lost time. As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011622 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011622 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2