IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150008617 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, in effect, an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to an honorable discharge. He also request copies of his official military personnel file and he military medical records. 2. The applicant states he was not absent without leave (AWOL). He states he was on guard duty when he was shot in the head. He states his records should be corrected to reflect this information so he can get Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. 3. The applicant provides no documentation in support of his application. 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. With regard to the applicant's request for copies of his military and medical records, this agency is not the custodian of his official military records. The applicant may request copies of his records by contacting the National Personnel Records Center, 1 Archives Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63138. These proceedings will not further address this matter. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 January 1981. He completed training as a light weapons infantryman. 4. The applicant went AWOL on 4 May 1981 and he remained absent in desertion until he was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control on 6 April 1982. 5. On 14 April 1982, the applicant was notified that charges were pending against him for being AWOL. He acknowledged receipt of the notification. After consulting with counsel he submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged he understood: * if his request for discharge was accepted, he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits as a result of the issuance of such a discharge * he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) * he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws * he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of a discharge under other than honorable conditions 6. The appropriate authority approved his request for discharge on 27 April 1982 and directed the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. On 11 June 1982, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 6 months and 4 days of net active service this period. He received an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. 7. The available evidence does not show the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. 8. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It states: a. Chapter 10 provides 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 at any time after court-martial charges were preferred. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. A discharge under other than honorable conditions would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. 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. His records show he had charges pending against him for being AWOL from 4 May 1981 until 6 April 1982. He voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He was discharged in accordance with the applicable regulation and the type of discharge he received appropriately characterizes his overall record of service. 2. The available evidence does not show that he was shot in the head while he was on guard duty. Prior to his discharge he acknowledged that he understood the type of discharge he might receive. His service simply did not rise to the level of a general or an honorable discharge. 3. The applicant has not shown error or injustice in the actions taken by the Army in his case. 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) AR20150008617 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150008617 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1