BOARD DATE: 18 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150019058 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: 18 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150019058 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AC76-6134 on 8 September 1976. ____________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: 18 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150019058 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 the previous Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision promulgated in Docket Number AC76-6134 on 8 September 1976. Specifically, he requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. 2. The applicant states he would like to have his discharge upgraded to either a general or honorable discharge. He did not have time to consider "the discharge" before signing the papers to accept the discharge. He did not receive proper counsel to consider what he was signing. He was also not advised of other options in his case. He only signed because his wife was considering suicide and he was scared to lose her. 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his request. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AC76-6134 on 8 September 1976. 2. The applicant provides a statement that constitutes a new argument, which was not previously considered by the Board and now warrants consideration. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 June 1973. He entered active duty at Fort Dix, NJ, for the purpose of completing his initial entry training (IET). His record indicates he did not finish his IET. 4. The applicant's record shows he was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on or about 23 June 1973. He was dropped from the rolls of the Army on or about 22 July 1973 and he was returned to military control on or about 9 September 1973. He was again reported as AWOL on or about 17 September 1973, was dropped from the rolls of the Army, and was returned to military control on or about 6 February 1974. 5. Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for his periods of AWOL service. 6. The applicant consulted with legal counsel on 14 February 1974 and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of an undesirable discharge, and the procedures and rights that were available to him. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, he voluntarily 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. 7. In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated he understood that if his request for discharge was accepted, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He indicated he had been advised as to the possible effect of an undesirable discharge and understood that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA, and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. He declined to make a statement in his behalf. 8. The applicant's complete separation packet is not available for review. However, it appears the separation authority approved his request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. 9. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 26 March 1974. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and his character of service was under other than honorable conditions. 9. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharged; however, his request was denied on 3 May 1976. 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 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharged was carefully considered. He contends he was not properly counseled on his options before requesting the discharge. 2. The applicant was reported AWOL after serving three weeks in basic training. After a total of 222 days of lost time, he was charged with the commission of an offense(s) punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. After consulting with counsel, he requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. 3. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 4. The applicant's voluntary request for discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable laws and regulations. There is no indication the request was made under coercion or duress. The characterization of service he received was commensurate with the reason for his 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) AR20150019058 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2