IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 December 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005716 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 undesirable discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states his discharge should be upgraded for medical reasons alone (presumed to mean to qualify for Department of Veterans Affairs medical benefits). 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. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 February 1973 for a period of 4 years. 3. Between June 1973 and December 1973, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him on three occasions for: * being absent without leave (AWOL) for 4 hours * being AWOL from 10 November 1973 to 14 November 1973 * disobeying a lawful order 4. On 14 February 1974, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 4 January 1974 to 25 January 1974. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 75 days and forfeiture of $50.00 pay for 2 months. On 5 March 1974, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for confinement at hard labor for 60 days and forfeiture of $50.00 pay for 2 months. 5. Between April 1974 and May 1974, NJP was imposed against him on two occasions for: * being AWOL from 16 April 1974 to 22 April 1974 * disobeying a lawful order 6. His records are void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge action; however, his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 13 May 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 13-5a(1). He completed 10 months and 21 days of total active service with 115 days of lost time. The separation program number 28B shown on his DD Form 214 represents unfitness due to involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. 7. 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. 8. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 13-5a(1), in effect at the time, provided for discharge due to unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. 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 implies he wants his discharge upgraded so he can receive VA benefits. However, the character of a discharge is not changed solely for the purpose of qualifying an applicant for VA benefits. Each application is considered based on its individual merits. 2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant's separation processing was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Without the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed that the authority and reason for his discharge and the characterization of service he received were commensurate with his overall record of service. 3. In view of the foregoing information, there is an insufficient evidentiary 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 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) AR20150005716 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005716 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1