IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 April 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017363 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 IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 April 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017363 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 April 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017363 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable or general under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states he wants to change the status of his discharge to receive military benefits (presumed to mean Department of Veterans Affairs benefits) and retain his time in service. He needs the change as soon as possible due to a medical emergency. 3. The applicant provides: * self-authored letter authorizing his sister to make certain decisions on his behalf, dated 21 October 2015 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 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. Having prior enlisted service in the U.S. Army Reserve, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 June 1981 for a period of 3 years. He extended his 3-year enlistment on 24 November 1982 for a period of 3 years and 6 months. On 15 October 1984, he again extended his enlistment for a period of 3 months. He was promoted to sergeant effective 6 January 1986. 3. His records contain a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 10 April 1987, showing he was charged with one specification of writing a bad check. The continuation sheet is not available for review. A 1st endorsement to a memorandum from the applicant's brigade commander, dated 11 June 1987, states the applicant is pending trial by general court-martial for uttering worthless checks, aggravated assault, and communicating a threat. 4. On 26 May 1987, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. He acknowledged that by submitting his request for discharge he was guilty of the charge(s) against him that authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He indicated he understood he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and given a discharge UOTHC, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, and he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. He acknowledged he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of a discharge UOTHC. He elected to not make a statement in his own behalf. His request for discharge shows he was charged with 11 specifications of writing bad checks, two specifications of assault, and one specification of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. 5. On 17 July 1987, the separation authority approved his voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. 6. On 27 August 1987, he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He completed a total of 7 years, 9 months, and 16 days of creditable active service. His service was characterized as UOTHC. 7. There is no evidence showing he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 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. A discharge UOTHC requires reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. 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: 1. The applicant requested an upgrade of his discharge to receive medical benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, the character of a discharge is not changed solely for the purpose of qualifying an applicant for veterans' benefits. Each application is considered based on its individual merits. 2. His voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. He had an opportunity to submit a statement wherein he could have voiced his concerns; however, he elected not to do so. 3. The type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 4. His record of service during his last enlistment included serious offenses for which general court-martial charges were preferred against him while serving in the rank of sergeant. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017363 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017363 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2