BOARD DATE: 13 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001982 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: 13 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001982 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: 13 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001982 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 to general under honorable conditions. 2.  The applicant states he needs medical and housing benefits provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 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. 2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 May 1987. He was advanced to private first class/E-3 effective 1 May 1988. 3.  He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 3 September 1988 and was dropped from the rolls of the Army on 3 October 1988. He surrendered to military authorities on 10 October 1988 and was transferred to the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Dix, NJ. During his intake interview, he said he was AWOL because he was not satisfied with his job in the Army. He said he tried to talk to his chain of command. 4.  On 20 October 1988, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification of AWOL from 3 September to 10 October 1988. 5.  On 20 October 1988 after consulting with counsel, the applicant 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 he was making the request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person. He also acknowledged that he had been advised of the implications that were attached to it and that he was guilty of the charges against him. Further, he acknowledged that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate, and the result of the issuance of such a discharge. He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 6.  On 15 November 1988, the Personnel Control Facility Commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge. He stated the applicant had no motivation for continued service and would not respond to either counseling or rehabilitation. 7.  On 14 December 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate and his reduction to pay grade E-1. 8.  He was discharged accordingly on 1 January 1989. He completed 1 year, 6 months, and 29 days of active service and had 37 days of lost time. His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. 9.  There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. a.  Chapter 10 provided that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. The Soldier was required to sign the request indicating he or she understood he or she could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and the results of the issuance of such a discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate. b.  Paragraph 3-7a provided that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. c.  Paragraph 3-7b provided that a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION: 1.  The applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge. Separations under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 2.  After consulting with counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He acknowledged that he had been advised of the implications attached to his request and that he was guilty of the charges against him. Further, he acknowledged that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate, and the result of the issuance of such a discharge. He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. He was discharged accordingly on 9 January 1989. 3.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights. The characterization of his discharge was commensurate with the reason for discharge in accordance with the governing regulation in effect at the time. The separation authority determined 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) AR20160001982 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001982 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2