BOARD DATE: 15 November 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110012467 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, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states his discharge should be upgraded because he served in Vietnam and he would like to receive Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. 3. The applicant provides two reference letters in support of his application. 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 personnel records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 August 1969. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). The highest grade he attained was pay grade E-3. 3. He served in Vietnam from 14 March 1970 to 3 February 1971. 4. On 22 January 1970, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 to 16 January 1970. 5. On 3 March 1970, the applicant received NJP for being AWOL from 8 February to 1 March 1970. 6. On 24 September 1970, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of one specification of disobeying a lawful order and for failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty. 7. The applicant's record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing. The record does contain a properly-constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) which shows he was discharged on 3 February 1971 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 with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. It further shows that at the time he had completed 1 year, 3 months, and 12 days of total active service with 62 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement. 8. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred, Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. At the time, an Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service. 10. 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. 11. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states 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. 12. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge. It appears that he was charged with the commission of offense(s) punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant is presumed to have voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he waived his opportunity to appear before a court-martial. It is also presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. 2. The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded because he is a Vietnam War veteran was carefully considered and found to be insufficient in merit. There is no evidence and the applicant did not present any evidence which shows that the discharge he received in 1971 was unjust and or unfair. 3. The evidence of record, however, does shows the applicant received two NJPs and was tried and convicted by a special court-martial. 4. The ABCMR does not grant requests for the upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for veterans or medical benefits. Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge. Additionally, the granting of veteran's benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR and any questions regarding eligibility for VA benefits should be addressed to the VA. 5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. 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) AR20110012467 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110012467 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1