BOARD DATE: 9 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016384 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: 9 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016384 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: 9 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016384 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, that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, the discharge was improper because he never received professional counseling to address all of the mental and emotional strains that his enlistment caused him to experience. He was an immature, rural young man who was unaccustomed to the demanding culture of the Armed Forces. He suffered physical and mental anguish following his enlistment. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 9 December 1981 and three letters of support. 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 24 May 1979. He entered active duty, completed his initial entry training, and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (Cannon Crewman). 3. On or about 5 September 1979, he was assigned to Service Battery, 1st Battalion, 72nd Field Artillery Regiment, Fort Hood, TX. 4. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he was automatically advanced to the rank/grade of private (PV2)/E-2 on 24 November 1979. 5. A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 21 April 1980, shows his company commander blocked his automatic advancement to the rank/grade of private first class (PFC)/E-3. According to the company commander, the applicant's duty performance did not warrant promotion consideration at that time. 6. Two DA Forms 4187, dated 17 July 1980, show the applicant's duty status was changed from present for duty (PDY) to absent without leave (AWOL) effective 15 July 1980. His duty status changed from AWOL to PDY on 17 July 1980. 7. A DA Form 4187, dated 27 August 1980, shows the applicant's duty status was changed from PDY to AWOL effective 27 August 1980. A DA Form 4187, dated 29 August 1980, shows his duty status was changed from AWOL to PDY effective 29 August 1980. 8. A DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 23 September 1980, shows the applicant received non-judicial punishment for violating Article 86 of the UCMJ, specifically for being AWOL during the period 27 August – 29 August 1980. The punishment he received is illegible; however, his DA Form 2-1 confirms he was reduced in rank/grade to private (PV1)/E-1 that same day. 9. A DA Form 4187, dated 4 August 1981, shows the applicant's duty status was changed from PDY to AWOL effective 4 August 1981. A DA Form 4187, dated 3 September 1981, shows he was dropped from the rolls (DFR) of the Army on 3 September 1981. 10. Orders 205-15, issued by Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, on 26 October 1981, show the applicant was assigned to the U.S. Army Personnel Confinement Facility (USAPCF), Fort Bragg, NC, on 2 October 1981. 11. A DA Form 4187, issued by the USAPCF on 27 October 1981, shows the applicant's duty status was changed from DFR to PDY on or about 2 October 1981. Section IV (Remarks) shows the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities on 2 October 1981. He was transported to Fort Rucker, AL, on 7 October 1981, pending transportation to Fort Benning, GA, and later to Fort Bragg, NC. 12. Orders 230-51, issued by Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, on 3 December 1981, show the applicant was reassigned to the U.S. Army Separation Transfer Point for separation processing with a report date of 9 December 1981. 13. The applicant's discharge packet is not available for review; however, his record contains a DD Form 214. This form shows: * he was discharged on 9 December 1981, in the rank/grade of private (PV1)/E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial * he was issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge following his completion of 2 years, 4 months, and 15 days of net active service during this period of enlistment * he had a total of 62 days lost time 14. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 15. The applicant provides three letters of support. The letters describe how he contributes to the community and religious activities. Writers mention his work ethic; however, they describe his challenges with completing tasks due to mental concerns. It is suggested that he receive professional assistance with his mental condition and other injuries he may have incurred while in the military. 16. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained on 6 March 2017, from an Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor/ Psychologist, who was asked to determine if the applicant's military separation was due to a behavioral health condition. The advisory official noted and opined: a. The applicant did meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), Chapter 3, and the provisions set forth in Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) that were applicable to the applicant's era of service. b. It is unknown if the applicant's mental health conditions were considered at the time of his discharge from the Army, though there were no symptoms that would have enabled a provider to diagnose one. c. A review of available documentation did not discover evidence of a mental-health consideration that bears on the character of discharge in this case. A nexus between the applicant's misconduct and his mental health was not discovered. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. b. 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. c. 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge. His record does show he was AWOL, and later dropped from the rolls of the Army until he was apprehended by civilian authorities and returned to military control. 2. It appears he was charged with the commission of an offense(s) punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge, after which he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 3. The applicant is presumed to have voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he waived his opportunity to appear before a court-martial. It is also presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, it is presumed his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service during his enlistment. The characterization of service he received was commensurate with the authority for his discharge. Absent evidence to the contrary, regularity must be presumed in this case. 4. The applicant's post-service community contributions and conduct are noted; however, post-service conduct alone is 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) AR20150016310 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150016384 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2