IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015263 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: 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015263 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: : 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015263 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable. 2. The applicant states he was discharged because of being absent without leave (AWOL) due to family issues. After years of development and realizing the mistakes he made, he is requesting an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. The incident that led to his discharge is the only offense he ever had in his career. He is requesting an upgrade of his discharge because of his previous accolades. 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence. 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. Having prior service in the Army National Guard, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 July 1983 for a period of 3 years. He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13M (multiple launch rocket system crewmember). 3. His records contain: a. a certificate of achievement, dated 3 August 1984, for meritorious achievement during the 102d Military Intelligence Battalion's command inspection from 30 July to 3 August 1984; and b. a certificate of training, dated 12 April 1985, for completion of the 3d Signal Brigade 80-hour Leadership Training. 4. On 30 January 1986, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment. On 31 January 1986, he reenlisted for a period of 5 years. 5. 546th Personnel Service Company Permanent Orders 86-28, dated 20 May 1986, awarded him the Army Achievement Medal for meritorious service during the period 30 November 1984 to 4 April 1986. 6. He was promoted to sergeant effective 1 July 1986. 7. His records contain a certificate of training, dated 18 July 1986, for completion of the Command Language Program-German during the period 7 through 18 July 1986. 8. 258th Personnel Service Company Permanent Orders 107-4, dated 29 August 1986, awarded him the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) for the period 21 July 1983 to 20 July 1986. 9. His DA Form 2166-6 (Enlisted Evaluation Report) covering the period July 1986 through August 1987 contains the following comments, in part: a. "He has the potential to become a Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) of exceptional ability, but does need improvement in areas that one would expect of a newly promoted sergeant." a. "[Applicant] has the potential to become an outstanding Noncommissioned Officer. Some aspects of his duty performance do need improvement, as one would expect from a newly promoted sergeant." 10. His DA Form 2166-6 covering the period February 1987 through January 1988 contains the following comments, in part: a. "[Applicant] performs his assigned duties in a satisfactory manner….However, [Applicant] does need improvement in several areas." b. "[Applicant] is a good Soldier who meets or exceeds standards on all assigned tasks." 11. His DA Form 2166-6 covering the period February 1988 through August 1988 contains the following comments, in part: a. "[Applicant] is a well-developed Soldier. However, he demonstrates a lack of initiative which hampers his leadership ability and reduces his productivity." b. "While serving as…[Applicant] performed his technical duties in a satisfactory manner. [Applicant] does need improvement in demonstrating initiative and in seeking self-improvement." 12. His DA Form 2166-7 (NCO Evaluation Report) covering the period September 1988 through April 1989 shows: a. His rater placed an "X" in the "NO" block in Part IVa (Values/NCO Responsibilities) for: * Places dedication and commitment to the goals and missions of the Army and nation above personal welfare * Is honest and truthful in word and deed * Has the courage of convictions and the ability to overcome fear – stands up for and does what's right b. He was rated "Needs Improvement (Some)" for Competence, Physical Fitness and Military Bearing, Training, and Responsibility and Accountability by his rater. He was rated "Needs Improvement (Much)" for Leadership by his rater. He was rated "Marginal" for overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility by his rater. c. He was rated "Fair-4" in Part V (Overall Performance and Potential) and "Poor-5" for overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility by his senior rater. 13. His records show he was AWOL from 21 to 22 August 1989. 14. He was AWOL again from 1 September 1989 to 7 January 1990. On 18 January 1990, charges were preferred against him for the AWOL period. 15. On 18 January 1990, he consulted with counsel and 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. He acknowledged that by submitting his request for discharge, he was guilty of a charge against him 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 given a discharge UOTHC, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, 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. 16. On 9 February 1990, the separation authority approved his voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. 17. On 19 March 1990, he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He completed 6 years, 3 months, and 20 days of net active service during this period with 131 days of lost time. His service was characterized as UOTHC. 18. His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded or authorized the: * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon (2nd Award) * Army Achievement Medal (2nd Award) * Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon * Army Good Conduct Medal * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) 19. There is no evidence indicating he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 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 UOTHC 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 he was AWOL because of family issues and the incident that led to his discharge is the only offense he ever had in his career. He also contends his discharge should be upgraded because of his previous accolades. 2. His personal awards of two Army Achievement Medals and the Army Good Conduct Medal, as well as his promotion to sergeant, were noted. However, his evaluation reports show his performance declined significantly during the period September 1988 through April 1989 and he was subsequently AWOL from 21 to 22 August 1989 and from 1 September 1989 to 8 January 1990. 3. His records contain no evidence showing he experienced burdensome family issues or sought assistance through his chain of command. His voluntary request for separation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial for the AWOL offenses 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. 4. His last term of enlistment included 131 days of lost time while holding the rank of sergeant. His overall record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel required for an honorable or general character of service. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015263 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015263 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2