IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 March 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004306 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 IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 March 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004306 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 March 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004306 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 (UOTHC) to honorable. 2. The applicant states: a. He should have an honorable discharge. b. He served as a sniper along the demilitarized zone border in Korea and was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for this service. He served honorably in the Southwest Asia wars. He had a good record. c. After the Gulf War, he went home without approval. He was absent for 31 days. d. The war affected him mentally. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Army Achievement Medal Certificate * Combat Infantryman Badge orders * service personnel records * monograph of the Persian Gulf War 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 August 1988 for a period of 4 years. He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (infantryman). He served in Korea from 11 January 1989 to 10 January 1990 and he was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for this service. He served in Southwest Asia from 1 September 1990 to 29 March 1991. 3. He was absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 June 1991 to 19 July 1991. On 26 July 1991, charges were preferred against him for the AWOL period. 4. On 26 July 1991, he consulted with counsel and 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 by submitting his request for discharge he was guilty of a charge against him that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He indicated he understood he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and given a discharge UOTHC, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. He acknowledged he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of a discharge UOTHC. He elected to not make a statement in his own behalf. 5. On 3 February 1992, the separation authority approved his voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. 6. On 9 March 1992, he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He completed a total of 3 years, 5 months, and 20 days of creditable active service with 34 days of lost time. His service was characterized as UOTHC. 7. There is no evidence which shows he was diagnosed with any mental health condition prior to his discharge. 8. In February 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for a discharge upgrade. REFERENCES: 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, a discharge UOTHC 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: 1. The applicant's contention that the war affected him mentally was carefully considered. However, there is no evidence and he provided no evidence which shows he was diagnosed with any mental health condition prior to his discharge. 2. His voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. He had an opportunity to submit a statement wherein he could have voiced his concerns; however, he elected not to do so. 3. The type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 4. His record of service included 34 days of lost time. As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) @#!CASENUMBER 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004306 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2