BOARD DATE: 26 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015326 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: 26 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015326 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 to amend the decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records set forth in Docket Number AR20050006530 on 22 December 2005. _________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: 26 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015326 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 previous request for an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states: a. He was a young man. He was attempting to fix injustices to his family that resulted in him making some wrong decisions. He had been attempting to gather supporting documentation in order to correct his discharge. b. He has truly grown since the date of his discharge. A day does not go by that he does not regret his choice. At the time his new wife, who was 16 years of age, was in jail and he thought it was his duty to help her. She was sentenced to confinement in prison and then divorced him. He wishes that he had continued in the service and fulfilled his dream. He remarried and has been for 20-plus years and they are very happy. c. He has been employed as a school bus driver for the past 6 years driving approximately 3,500 high school students. He sets a good example for the kids who ride his bus. He has encouraged all the students to participate in the Reserve Officers' Trainings Corps and he sees great potential in some of the students. He talks to them about the Army being a great career. It would be a great honor to tell them that he was honorably discharged. He is a great supporter of the Armed Forces, especially the 82nd Airborne Division. 3. The applicant provides his DD Form 4/1 and 4/2 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States, DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II), DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), and six character references letters. 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 (ABMCR) in Docket Number AR20050006530 on 22 December 2005. 2. The applicant provided new arguments and supporting documentation requiring consideration by the Board. 3. He enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-3 on 2 November 1983 for 3 years. At the time of his enlistment he was 19 years old. He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer). 4. He was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 14 December 1984 and was dropped from the rolls of his organization on 13 January 1985. He was returned to military control on or about 15 February 1985. 5. On 26 February 1985, a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) was completed by the Commander, Special Processing Company, Personnel Control Facility, Fort Knox, KY. The applicant was charged with one specification of being AWOL from 14 December 1984 to 15 February 1985. Court-martial charges were preferred against him on the same date. 6. On 26 February 1985 after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial. He acknowledged that he was making the request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercions whatsoever by any person. He also acknowledged that he had been advised of the implications that were attached to it and that he was guilty of the AWOL charges against him. Further, he acknowledged that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions, furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate, and the result of the issuance of such a discharge. He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 7. On 8 March 1985, his chain of command recommended approval of his request and the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 8. On 14 March 1985, the separation authority approved his request and directed the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate and reduction to pay grade E-1. 9. He was discharged accordingly on 17 April 1985. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 3 months, and 15 days of active service and had 63 days of time lost. 10. He provided six character reference letters wherein the individuals attested that the applicant was a model citizen and a noteworthy employee. One individual attested to the fact that the applicant was deserving of consideration of his request for an upgrade of his discharge. REFERENCES: AR 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation stated: a. Chapter 10 – a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for a 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 include the individual’s admission of guilt. The Soldier was required to sign the request indicating he understood he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and the results of the issuance of such a discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7a – an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. c. Paragraph 3-7b – a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable condition. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge. Discharge actions processed under the provisions of chapter 10 of AR 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 2. After consulting with counsel he acknowledged that he had been advised of the implications that were attached to it and that he was guilty of the charges against him. Further, he acknowledged that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions, furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate, and the result of the issuance of such a discharge. He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. He was discharged accordingly. 3. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no evidence of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The characterization of his service was commensurate with his reason for discharge in accordance with the governing regulation 4. He was 19 years of age at the time of his enlistment and over 20 years of age at the time of his chapter 10 separation processing. There is no evidence he was any less mature than Soldiers of the same age who honorably completed their terms of service or that his actions were a result of his age. Post-service accomplishments are not normally a basis for upgrading a discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015326 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015326 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2