BOARD DATE: 9 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017723 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 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017723 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 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017723 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 general under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states: a. He enlisted in the Army on 25 June 1973 and he was discharged UOTHC on 3 March 1983. It has been 32 years since his discharge. He reenlisted right before he made the biggest mistake of his life. He had every intention of retiring from the Army, but he destroyed that hope. He was wrong and regrets it every day. b. When he reenlisted, his wife was pregnant with their second child who was born on 11 June 1983. He was waiting for orders to Germany. His wife had some problems with their first child and he was worried if he did not receive orders soon his wife would not be able to travel with him. He was teaching at Fort Dix and was anxious to get back to working in a motor pool. Fort Dix was his choice and a bad choice for him because everything was very intense. Being Christmas Eve, being young, and being a new father made things even harder. These are not excuses for his actions, it is what was happening at the time. c. He took several jobs after leaving the Army and ended up building elevators in Michigan. He completed a college degree in labor management. He is now a business manager for International Union of Elevator Constructors Local 85. He has won four elections to keep this position and each time no one has run against him. He works with helmets and hardhats, he is on the education committee, he signs the paperwork for veterans to receive school benefits for their apprentice program, and he is a teacher. d. He is a father of two boys, both completed college. He is married to the same woman for 42 years. He has worked with elevators for over 30 years. He has been a Cub Master, been involved in the Boy Scouts, and helped build and design a skating park in their community. 3. The applicant provides: * self-authored letter * Certification of Military Service * DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) for the period ending 27 December 1978 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 3 March 1983 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 was born on 23 June 1954. At age 19, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 June 1973 for a period of 3 years. He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (wheel vehicle mechanic). On 25 March 1975, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment. 3. He reenlisted on 26 March 1975 for a period of 4 years. On 27 December 1978, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment. 4. He reenlisted on 28 December 1978 for a period of 4 years. He was promoted to the rank of staff sergeant effective 5 December 1981. On 14 December 1982, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment. 5. He reenlisted on 15 December 1982 for a period of 5 years. 6. His records contain a DA Form 268 (Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions), dated 27 December 1982, showing he was under investigation for incidents occurring on 25 December 1982 which included: * wrongful appropriation of a vehicle * damage to military property * violation of a lawful general regulation (weapons registration) * breach of peace 7. His records are void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge action. 8. On 3 March 1983, he was discharged 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 completed 9 years, 8 months, and 9 days of creditable active service. His service was characterized as UOTHC. 9. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: 1. 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. 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. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends he was a young man; however, age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor. He was 19 years of age when he enlisted and he successfully completed training. There is no evidence indicating he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military terms of service. 2. His post-service accomplishments are commendable. However, good post-service conduct alone is normally not a basis for upgrading a discharge. Each case is individually considered based on the evidence of record and the evidence provided by the applicant establishing an error or injustice. 3. His records show he was under investigation for incidents occurring on 25 December 1982, which included wrongful appropriation of a vehicle, damage to military property, violation of a lawful general regulation (weapons registration), and breach of peace. Without his discharge packet to consider, it must be presumed that he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 4. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must further be presumed that his separation processing was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017723 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017723 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2