BOARD DATE: 10 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001781 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: 10 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001781 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: 10 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001781 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). 2. The applicant states, in effect, his violations that led to his discharge were not of a violent nature, but due to a lack of good judgment on his part. Although he has no supporting documents available to provide, he has no criminal arrests since his Army discharge 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 U.S. Army Reserve on 23 December 1981. Armed Forces Examining and Entrance Station Order Number 259-21, dated 23 December 1981, ordered him to initial active duty for training effective 2 February 1982. 3. A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 9 November 1982, shows he was charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) from Company C, 2d Battalion, Quartermaster School Brigade, Fort Lee, VA, from on or about 2 June 1982 until on or about 2 November 1982. 4. On 17 November 1982, 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. He consulted with counsel 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 a discharge UOTHC, and the procedures and rights available to him. He did not submit a statement in his own behalf. 5. On 24 November 1982, his immediate commander recommended approval of his request. He indicated he interviewed the applicant, who stated he was AWOL approximately 154 days due to personal problems. The applicant stated in the interview that entering the military was his first time away from home, he could not adjust to military life, and he desired discharge. The commander deemed the applicant lacking rehabilitative potential based on his attitude toward the military and recommended a UOTHC discharge. 6. On 20 December 1982, the officer exercising general court-martial convening authority approved his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation  635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. He directed his reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and a UOTHC discharge. 7. His DD Form 214 for this period shows he was discharged for the good of the service – in lieu of court-martial on 12 January 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He completed 6 months and 11 days of active service during this period with lost time from 2 June 1982 through 20 October 1982, 21 October 1982 through 25 October 1982, and 28 October 1982 through 2 November 1982. His service was characterized as UOTHC. 8. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10, in effect at the time, provided that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized sentence included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges were preferred. Although an honorable or general discharge could be directed, 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. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. The evidence shows he was charged with being AWOL from on or about 2 June 1982 until on or about 2 November 1982. This offense is punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and could have resulted in a punitive discharge. 2. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge from the Army to avoid trial by court-martial. He consulted with counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial and the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ. Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 3. There is no evidence that indicates he was not properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time, that all requirements of law and regulations were not met, or that his rights were not fully protected throughout the separation process. 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) AR20160001781 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001781 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2