BOARD DATE: 20 March 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110018188 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 reconsideration of his earlier request to upgrade his discharge to general. 2. The applicant states he has new evidence and new arguments that were not considered by the Board. * Before being assigned to Germany he passed the E-5 promotion board; but there were no E-5 positions in his new unit so he remained an E-4 * If he had been promoted to E-5 as promised he may not have experienced the pressure and stress that led to his being absent without leave (AWOL) * Lies of other Soldiers resulted in the suspended nonjudicial punishment (NJP) being vacated. He would never have alcohol in the field * His unit had the highest AWOL, article 15, and court-martial rate, and many of the Soldiers were abused by their superiors * He disagrees with the original record of proceedings (ROP) stating "his discharge reflects his overall record of service". He performed the best he could under arduous conditions * He suffered prejudice and discrimination and his request should not be denied * He will not be eligible for veterans benefits without an upgrade of the discharge * After serving over 5 years he should have received a general or honorable discharge 3. The applicant did not provide any supporting documentation. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20100008916, dated 12 August 2010. 2. The applicant submitted new arguments that require reconsideration. 3. The applicant's records show he served in the Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Alabama Army National Guard prior to enlisting the Regular Army on 29 December 1983. He held military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Food Service Specialist), and was promoted to specialist four/E-4. He served in Germany from 23 July 1985 to 2 October 1986. He was awarded the Army Service Ribbon and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar. 4. The punishment for a February 1986, NJP under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully using marijuana was suspended. On 20 June 1986, the suspended punishment was vacated for having alcoholic beverages in the field. 5. On 27 June 1986, the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL). He ultimately returned to military control on 18 August 1986. 6. On 19 August 1986, court-martial charges were preferred against him for the above period of AWOL. The applicant requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial in accordance with chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations). 7. On 3 October 1986, he received an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. He had completed 2 years, 10 months, and 16 days of creditable active service and had 52 days of lost time. 8. On 25 February 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded based upon his new arguments as been noted. However, he has not provided any new documentation or convincing argument to substantiate any of his allegations. 2. There is no evidence of record showing: a. He passed the E-5 promotion board and there were no E-5 positions in his new unit in Germany. b. The lies of other Soldiers resulted in the suspended NJP punishment being vacated. c. His unit had the highest AWOL, article 15, and court-martial rate, or that many of the Soldiers were abused by their superiors. 3. The following arguments were taken into consideration and are considered insufficient to grant his request: a. His disagreement with the original ROP stating "his discharge reflects his overall record of service" and that he performed the best he could under arduous conditions. b. He suffered prejudice and discrimination. c. After serving over 5 years he should have been granted a general or honorable discharge. Based on his record of misconduct, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. This misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge to an honorable or a general discharge. 4. The ABCMR does not upgrade discharges based solely on the passage of time nor does it correct records solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for benefits from another agency. The granting of veteran's benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR and any questions regarding eligibility for health care and other benefits should be addressed to the VA. 5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20100008916, dated 12 August 2010. __________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) AR20110005373 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110018188 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1