BOARD DATE: 23 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000068 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: 23 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000068 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: 23 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000068 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 general discharge under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states he wants his discharge upgraded for receipt of benefits (presumed to mean Department of Veterans Affairs benefits). 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence. 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 1 October 1974 for a period of 3 years. 3. Between 21 July 1975 and 11 February 1976, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him on three occasions for: * failing to obey a lawful order * failing to go to his appointed place of duty * being absent without leave (AWOL) from 29 January 1976 to 2 February 1976, disobeying a lawful order, failing to obey a lawful order, and being absent from his unit (two specifications) for approximately 18 hours 4. On 15 March 1976, charges were preferred against him for: * being AWOL from 24 February 1976 to 6 March 1976 * being AWOL from 7 March 1976 to 12 March 1976 * breaking arrest 5. Trial by special court-martial was recommended. 6. On 25 March 1976 after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for 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 indicated he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. He also acknowledged he understood he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge. He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf; however, his statement is not available for review. 7. On 23 April 1976, the separation authority approved his voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 8. His records show he was AWOL from 27 April 1976 to 5 May 1976. 9. On 20 May 1976, 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 1 year, 6 months, and 21 days of creditable active service with 29 days of lost time. His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 10. On 14 December 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for a discharge upgrade. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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 Veterans Administration 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 to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. b. 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. 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. Although the applicant contends he received a general discharge, the evidence of record shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 2. His record of service included three nonjudicial punishments and 29 days of lost time. 3. His voluntary request for separation 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. 4. He indicates he wants his discharge upgraded for receipt of veterans' benefits. Any questions he may have regarding eligibility for veterans' benefits should be directed to the Department of Veterans Affairs. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000068 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000068 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2