BOARD DATE: 15 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001615 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: 15 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001615 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: 15 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001615 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 characterization of service. 2. The applicant makes no statement. 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. The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 27 August 1969. 3. DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 2 March 1971, shows he was charged with two specifications of being absent without leave (AWOL) from his advanced individual training unit from on or about 4 January 1970 until on or about 27 October 1970 and again from on or about 17 November 1970 until on or about 26 February 1971. 4. An Investigating Officer's Report, dated 9 March 1971, shows the above charges were investigated and the investigating officer recommended trial by general court-martial based on his AWOL of 397 days. 5. On 3 March 1971, he 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 consulted with counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of an undesirable discharge, and the procedures and rights available to him. He did not submit a statement in his own behalf. 6. On 6 March 1971, his immediate commander recommended approval of the applicant's request. He indicated the applicant was a problem to the unit since he became a member. He went AWOL on 4 January 1970 and was apprehended at his home on 27 October 1970. He went AWOL again on 17 November 1970 until his apprehension by civilian authorities on 26 February 1971. Due to his extended periods of absence, his potential for any type of rehabilitation was deemed extremely poor. 7. On 19 March 1971, the officer exercising general court-martial convening authority approved his 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. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged for the good of the service on 30 March 1971 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. He completed 5 months and 22 days of active service during this period with lost time from 20 September through 24 September 1969, 4 January through 26 October 1970, and 17 November 1970 through 25 February 1971. 9. There is no evidence indicating he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade 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, in effect at the time, provided that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized sentence included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges were preferred. Although an honorable or general discharge could be directed, an Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. 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. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. The evidence shows he was charged with being AWOL on two occasions and his DD Form 214 shows a third count of AWOL not reflected on the charge sheet, amounting to nearly 400 days of lost time. These offenses are punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and could have resulted in a punitive discharge. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge from the Army to avoid trial by court-martial. 2. There is no evidence indicating he was not properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time, that all requirements of law and regulation were not met, or that his rights were not fully protected throughout the separation process. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001615 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001615 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2