BOARD DATE: 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014488 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 BOARD DATE: 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014488 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. BOARD DATE: 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014488 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 reconsideration of his request for upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge. 2. The applicant states that he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) and a review of his military records will show he performed his duties professionally. He qualified expert with weapons and he was honorably discharged to reenlist in the RA. a. He states he was assigned to Panama. He went home on leave when his daughter was born, he became ill, and he was taken to the hospital for surgery. He adds that he does not have any supporting documentation, but he will attempt to have Brackenridge Hospital send copies of his medical records to the Board. b. He also states (at the time) he talked to his commander by telephone and informed him of his hospitalization. The commander instructed him to return to the unit immediately. He contacted a chaplain at Fort Hood, TX, and explained the situation. The chaplain advised him to report to Fort Hood when he was released from the hospital and he would assist in getting him back to Panama. c. He asserts that he was not absent without leave (AWOL). After he was released from the hospital he reported to Fort Hood. He was then sent to Fort Sill, OK. The next day he found himself in a classroom with many other Soldiers. A noncommissioned officer (NCO) asked if any of them wanted to get out of the Army and about 75 percent of the Soldiers raised their hand. The NCO told them, based on the response, all of them would be separated from the Army. He states he did not want to get out of the Army and he was not offered any assistance or alternatives (e.g., legal counsel, court-martial, etc.). d. He was processed for separation from the Army, reduced to private (E-1), and discharged with a UOTHC discharge. He was also prohibited from entering U.S. Government facilities and told to "get home the best way you can." He adds that his automobile was left at Fort Hood along with his personal clothing and belongings and he never got them back. e. He states he was treated badly and not offered the opportunity to plead his case. However, he does not give up easily, he has a good work ethic, and he wants to reenter military service. He requests upgrade of his discharge. 3. The applicant provides a self-authored statement (summarized above), but no other documentary evidence. 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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20100009039 on 9 September 2010. 2. The applicant enlisted in the RA on 1 June 1977 for a period of 3 years. He was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman). He was promoted to specialist four (SP4)/pay grade E-4 on 1 November 1978. 3. A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the applicant was honorably discharged on 29 November 1979 to reenlist in the RA. He had completed 2 years, 5 months, and 29 days of net active service. 4. He reenlisted in the RA on 30 November 1979 for a period of 4 years. 5. He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86, for being AWOL from 9 February 1981 to 11 February 1981. His punishment was reduction to grade E-3, forfeiture of $300 pay per month for 2 months (1 month suspended for 90 days), and transfer to the 2nd Armored Division, Correctional Custody Facility, for a period of 30 days. 6. He was assigned overseas to Panama on 12 May 1981. He was promoted to SP4 (E-4) on 1 July 1981. 7. On 18 February 1982, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for violation of the UCMJ, Article 85, for being AWOL, beginning on or about 19 January 1982 and remaining absent in desertion. 8. On 21 April 1982, the applicant consulted with legal counsel. He was informed of the charges against him for violating the UCMJ, Article 85 (for being AWOL from 19 January 1982 to 6 April 1982), and that he was pending trial by court-martial. He was advised of the rights available to him and of the option to request discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. a. He voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. By submitting his request for discharge he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge(s) against him or of (a) lesser included offense(s) therein contained, which also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. The applicant's request for discharge states he was not subjected to coercion with respect to his request for discharge. b. He was advised that he might be: * deprived of many or all Army benefits * ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration * deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws c. He acknowledged he understood that, if his request for discharge was accepted, he might be discharged UOTHC. d. He was also advised that he could submit statements in his own behalf; however, he elected not to submit any statements in his own behalf. e. The applicant and his counsel placed their signatures on the document. 9. Headquarters, U.S. Army Field Artillery Center, Fort Sill, OK, Order 130-371, dated 10 May 1982, discharged the applicant from the RA effective 14 May 1982. 10. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he entered active duty this period on 30 November 1979 and he was discharged on 14 May 1982, in the rank of private (E-1), 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, with an UOTHC character of service. He had completed 2 years, 2 months, and 26 days of net active service during this period and he had 79 days of lost time. 11. The applicant submitted an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge. On 18 April 1985, the ADRB determined that the reason for his discharge and the characterization of his service were both proper and equitable. Accordingly, the ADRB denied the relief requested by the applicant. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, 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. Chapter 3, 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. Chapter 3, 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 contends that his request for upgrade of his UOTHC discharge should be reconsidered because he served honorably during the period of his initial enlistment, he was treated unfairly by his commander and a chaplain, and he was not afforded due process during his separation processing. 2. The applicant's honorable active duty service during the period 1 June 1977 through 29 November 1979 is acknowledged and it is noted that he was issued a DD Form 214 to substantiate that period of honorable active duty service. 3. The sincerity of the applicant's comments with respect to unfair treatment by his commander and a chaplain is not in dispute. The evidence of record shows the applicant was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf when he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, he did not submit any statements to support his contention of unfair treatment (or to explain matters related to the charges). He has not submitted any documentary evidence with his application to the Board to support his contentions. 4. The evidence of record shows that the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial by court-martial was both voluntary and administratively correct. All requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. As such, he was afforded due process. 5. The evidence of record shows the applicant received NJP for being AWOL for a period of 2 days and he was reduced in rank. Then, he was charged with being AWOL from 19 January 1982 and remaining absent in desertion (until 6 April 1982). a. He requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, he was reduced to E-1, and discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. b. The applicant's service during the period under review did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel required for an honorable or a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014488 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014488 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2