IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 January 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140009090 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 discharge to a general, under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he was a good Soldier and a General's driver while on active duty. When his father became seriously ill he went home to help his mother care for him. Once his father recovered he returned to military control. He was young and not thinking straight. He is requesting the discharge upgrade so that he can join the U.S. Army Reserve. 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. On 8 October 1991, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army at age 19. After completing initial training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 88M (Motor Transport Operator). He was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, and the Parachutist Badge. 3. His record indicates he was absent without leave (AWOL) from 14 February through 15 February 1994. He was again placed in an AWOL status from 22 July to 25 October 1994. Upon returning to military control he was assigned to the U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility at Fort Knox, KY. 4. On 28 October 1994, his commander preferred charges against him for the above period of AWOL from 22 July to 25 October 1994. Also on 28 October 1994, the applicant 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge, and the procedures and rights available to him. Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 5. In his request for discharge, he indicated he: * was making the request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person * understood by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge * understood if the discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs * understood he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws * elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf 6. On 29 December 1994, the separation authority approved his request for discharge in lieu of court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 31 January 1995, he was discharged accordingly. 7. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. This form shows he completed 3 years and 18 days of active service and he had lost time from 14 to 15 February 1994 and 22 July to 22 October 1994. 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. a. Chapter 10 provides 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, an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate. b. 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. c. 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge was carefully considered; however, there was insufficient evidence to support his request. 2. The applicant was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. Discharges under this chapter are due to a voluntary request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. All requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 3. Records show the applicant was 19 years of age at the time of his enlistment and age 22 at the time his commander initiated separation action. There is no evidence indicating he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation. 4. 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 also renders his service unsatisfactory. Accordingly, there is insufficient basis upon which to grant the applicant's request for 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 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) AR20140009090 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140009090 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1