BOARD DATE: 10 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002195 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: AR20160002195 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: AR20160002195 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. 2. The applicant states he deeply regrets all unfortunate circumstances that led to his unfavorable discharge. Consideration for an upgrade is appreciated. 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 was inducted into the Army of the United States on 23 August 1967. 3. Multiple DA Forms 2627 (Summarized Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) show he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the UCMJ on the following occasions for the following offenses: * 14 October 1967 – for being derelict in the performance of his duties in that he failed to secure his weapon in the unit arms room on 13 October 1967 * 10 January 1968 – for going from his appointed place of duty without proper authority on 10 January 1968 * 19 March 1969 – for absenting himself from his unit on 16 March 1969 and remaining absent until 18 March 1969 4. A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 7 October 1969, shows he was charged with four specifications of being absent without leave (AWOL) from the Special Processing Detachment, U.S. Army Training Center, Infantry and Fort Jackson, Fort Jackson, SC, from 19 June 1969 until 2 July 1969, from 6 July 1969 until 8 July 1969, from 28 July 1969 until 31 July 1969 and from 12 September 1969 until 20 September 1969. He was also charged with escaping from lawful confinement at the Fort Jackson, SC, post stockade on 7 August 1969 and stealing a 1969 Chevrolet Camaro, of a value of more than $2,400.00, on 11 September 1969. 5. A report of psychiatric evaluation, dated 13 November 1969, shows the applicant had no mental defects sufficient to warrant separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). He was found mentally responsible to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right. He was deemed to have had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. 6. The applicant’s discharge packet is not in his available record for review. 7. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged for the good of the service on 30 March 1971 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. His service was characterized as UOTHC. He completed 2 years and 1 month of active service during this period with lost time from 16 March 1969 through 17 March 1969, 26 May 1969 through 28 May 1969, 19 June 1969 through 1 July 1969, 6 July 1969 through 8 July 1969, 9 July 1969, 28 July 1969 through 6 August 1969, 7 August 1969 through 4 September 1969, and 12 September 1969 through 3 December 1969. 8. He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge and on 21 July 1977 the Board denied his request, determining his discharge was both proper and equitable. 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 accepted NJP on three occasions and was charged with being AWOL on at least four occasions, escaping from military confinement, and stealing a vehicle. These offenses are punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and could have resulted in a punitive discharge. 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. 2. Although his discharge packet is not available for review, 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) AR20160002195 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002195 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2