BOARD DATE: 15 November 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110008532 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 his Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. 2. The applicant states he needed counseling after serving in Desert Storm. He wasn't mentally ready to handle anything else due to stress. 3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and excerpts from his military medical records. 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’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 April 1986, was awarded the military occupational specialty of automated logistical specialist, served in Southwest Asia (SWA) during Operation Desert Storm from 4 January to 2 May 1991, and was promoted to pay grade E-4. 3. On 21 May 1993, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 November 1992 until his apprehension by civilian authorities on 13 May 1993. On 21 May 1993, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He did not submit any matters of mitigation for the approving authority to consider when determining whether to accept his request or in characterizing his service. 4. His request was approved by the appropriate authority. Accordingly, on 15 September 1993, he was given a UOTHC discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations), chapter 10. 5. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, 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 UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate. 6. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. 7. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. 8. On 15 November 2007, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant had over 6 months of AWOL which was terminated by his apprehension by civilian authorities. Such a prolonged absence is serious misconduct and certainly warranted a UOTHC discharge. 2. While the applicant served in SWA during Operation Desert Storm as an automated logistical specialist there is no evidence that he was suffering from stress or that stress caused him to go AWOL. He did not submit any medical records showing he had been treated for stress-related problems while he was on active duty and he did not tell his command he was having stress-related problems when he was apprehended. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __X____ __X____ ___X_____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110008532 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110008532 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1