IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 February 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150006067 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 (UOTHC) discharge to “under honorable conditions or a general discharge.” 2. The applicant states, in effect, he is providing a new argument that was not previously considered. 3. He provides his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty). 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 ABCMR in Docket Number AR20110019237 on 29 March 2012. 2. As a new argument the applicant states that he was absent without leave (AWOL) because his wife was experiencing pregnancy related problems. His first sergeant rescinded his orders at the last minute for no good reason and he had been preparing to go back to duty when he was picked up by the military police. He further contends that he was informed by Army counsel that if he signed the chapter 10 separation his discharge would be automatically upgraded in 3 years. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 May 1973. 4. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he was: * AWOL from 4 September to 5 September 1973 * AWOL from 15 August to 15 August 1974 * AWOL from 28 September 1974 to 5 March 1975 5. Effective 28 October 1974, the applicant was dropped from the rolls and court-martial charges were preferred against him for being AWOL beginning on 28 September 1974. 6. On 6 March 1975, he was apprehended by military authorities. 7. The complete facts and circumstances of his discharge processing are not available for review. However, the record shows that on 24 March 1975 the applicant signed a memorandum requesting an explanation of his narrative reason for separation. 8. On 2 May 1975, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. His service was characterized as UOTHC and he was credited with 1 year, 5 months and 29 days of total active service with 162 days of lost time. 9. His record is void of documentation showing that he was AWOL because of a family emergency or that he had approved emergency leave that was rescinded. 10. 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. 11. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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 in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual’s admission of guilt. Although an honorable discharge or general discharge was authorized, a discharge of UOTHC was 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 Army does not have nor has it ever had a policy to upgrade discharges based on the passage of time. 2. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The record shows the applicant was AWOL for three periods of time, and his last period of AWOL lasted over 5 months. Based on this period of AWOL, he could have been tried by court-martial and punished with a punitive discharge under the UCMJ. Procedurally, he was required to consult with defense counsel and to voluntarily request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. 3. The record contains no indication of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized the applicant’s rights. Based on the periods of AWOL, his UOTHC discharge service characterization was appropriate. 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) AR20140000352 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150006067 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1