BOARD DATE: 16 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001019 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 BOARD DATE: 16 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001019 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. BOARD DATE: 16 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001019 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 undesirable discharge to general under honorable conditions. 2. He states, in effect, he was 19 years old, a kid with a ninth grade education, when he was drafted into the Army. He was drafted 4 months after he was married. His wife was unfaithful and he took it upon himself to try to fix his marriage. After several attempts to fix his marriage, she became pregnant by someone else while he was at Fort Riley, KS. When he concluded that he could not fix his marriage, he turned himself in at Fort Jackson, SC. He believed he would be allowed to complete his time in the service, but he was instructed to sign and initial paperwork so that he could go home. 3. He provides: * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate * Self-authored statements * Three supporting statements 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 was inducted into the Army of the United States on 24 July 1967 at the age of 19. 3. Special Court-Martial (SPCM) Order Number 214, issued by Headquarters, Special Troops, Fort Jackson, SC, on 1 March 1968, shows he was convicted of being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 7 December 1967 to 29 January 1968. His sentence was adjudged on 23 February 1968 and included reduction to the rank of private (PVT)/E-1, confinement at hard labor for 4 months, and a forfeiture of $41 pay for 4 months. On 1 March 1968, his sentence was approved except for his confinement at hard labor, which was suspended for 4 months. 4. SPCM Order Number 791, issued by Headquarters, Special Troops, Fort Jackson, SC, on 11 July 1968, shows he was convicted of being AWOL from on or about 11 March to 14 June 1968. His sentence was adjudged on 27 June 1968 and included confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of $41 pay per month for 6 months. 5. His record contains a DD Form 616 (Report of Return of Absentee), dated 20 June 1969, that shows the applicant was absent on 8 October 1968 and he was dropped from Army rolls on 3 December 1968. It further shows he returned to military control on 3 June 1969. 6. On 10 June 1969, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel, but declined the opportunity. He requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He initialed this request stating that he had not been subjected to coercion. a. In his request for discharge, he indicated he had been advised of the implications attached to his request and understood that if his request was accepted, his service could be characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) and he could be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. b. He acknowledged he understood that as a result of the issuance of such a discharge, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he might be ineligible for many or all Veterans Administration benefits, and that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge. He elected not to submit a statement in his behalf. 7. On 25 June 1969, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 8. On 11 July 1969, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he completed 5 months and 27 days of active service with the following periods listed as lost time: 7 December 1967 to 28 January 1968; 1 to 29 February 1968; 1 to 3 March 1968; 11 March to 12 August 1968; and 8 October 1968 to 2 June 1969 (478). 9. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 10. The supporting statements submitted by the applicant speak highly of his commitment to his family and his subsequent entry into the Army. a. One author states he has worked with the applicant and/or the applicant worked for him for over 24 years. In that time, the applicant has proved to be a very stable, polite, mature, and upstanding person with very high morals. b. The applicant’s pastor states the applicant has been a member of their church for over twenty years. He is a very honest person and serves as a deacon of the church. He offers that whatever the applicant has done in the past has been taken care of as the man he is today. c. The Sheriff, Lincoln County, NC, states the applicant has been a resident of Lincoln County for the last 67 years. The applicant has retired after a successful career with a clean record. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that an individual whose conduct rendered him triable by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could request a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of a trial. The regulation required that there have been no element of coercion involved in the submission of such a request and the individual was provided an opportunity to consult with counsel. The individual was required to sign the request indicating he understood that he could receive service characterized as UOTHC, the adverse nature of such a discharge, and the possible consequences thereof. The regulation required that the request be forwarded through channels to the general court-martial convening authority. An undesirable discharge would normally be furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. b. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized it is issued to an individual whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The available evidence show the applicant was age 19 at the time of induction into the military and he was age 21 at the time of discharge. There is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 2. His record of indiscipline shows two SPCM convictions and 478 days of lost time. The evidence confirms all requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. The record shows he voluntarily requested separation under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial. The characterization of service he received was commensurate with the reason for his discharge. 3. The supporting statements provided speak highly of the applicant’s work ethics, good citizenship, and commitment to family, and church. However, good post-service conduct alone is not normally a basis for upgrading a 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) AR20160001019 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001019 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2