BOARD DATE: 19 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002628 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: 19 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002628 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: 19 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002628 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge. 2. The applicant states he was discharged for being absent without leave (AWOL). He knows he should not have gone AWOL, but a sergeant major seemed to be against him. He also missed his family, particularly his infant son. His emotions clouded his judgment and he made a mistake that he regrets. He wanted to make the Army a career prior to this event. He recently learned he could request an upgrade of his discharge. He believes he could be losing health care benefits provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 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 the cases 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. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 25 June 1971 and he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 71B (Clerk Typist). He served in Alaska from 16 December 1971 to 15 June 1973. He was promoted to E-4 on 13 April 1973. He was honorably discharged on 4 April 1974 for the purpose of his immediate reenlistment. He was credited with completing 2 years, 9 months, and 10 days of active service. 3. He reenlisted in the RA for 5 years on 5 April 1974. He held MOS 42D (Dental Removable Prosthetic Specialist). He was promoted to E-5 on 15 January 1977. He served in Germany from 15 September 1977 to 10 September 1979. 4. He was reported in an AWOL status from 24 January to 22 February 1978 until he surrendered to military authorities and was returned to his unit. He was also reported in an AWOL status from 26 February to 30 May 1978. 6. On 13 June 1978, while at the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Sill, OK, the applicant was charged with one specification each of being AWOL from 24 January to 22 February 1978 and from 26 February to 30 May 1978. 7. On 13 June 1978, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial. He acknowledged he was making the request of his own free will and he was not subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person. He also acknowledged he had been advised of the implications that were attached to his request and that he was guilty of the charges against him. Further, he acknowledged he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions, furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate, and the result of the issuance of such a discharge. He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 8. An undated DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation) shows he underwent an evaluation in conjunction with his separation action and the examining physician found him mentally responsible and he met retention standards. 9. On 29 June 1978, the PCF Commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He stated the applicant was charged with two periods of being AWOL that equaled 122 days. The applicant had become disillusioned with the military and further retention would not be in the best interest of the Army. 10. On 14 July 1978, the separation authority approved his request for discharge and directed the applicant’s reduction to pay grade E-1 and issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate. 11. He was discharged accordingly on 21 July 1978. He was credited with completing 4 years, 11 months, and 28 days of active service with 122 days of lost time. His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. 12. There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15 year statute of limitations. REFERENCE: AR 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation stated in: a. Chapter 10 – A member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. The Soldier was required to sign the request indicating he understood he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and the results of the issuance of such a discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally considered appropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7a – An honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. c. Paragraph 3-7b – A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable condition. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge. Discharge actions processed under the provisions of chapter 10 of AR 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 2. After consulting with counsel he acknowledged he had been advised of the implications that were attached to his request for discharge and he was guilty of the charges against him. Further, he acknowledged he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions, furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate, and the results of the issuance of such a discharge. He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. He was discharged accordingly. 3. His administrative discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors that would have jeopardized his rights. His characterization of service was commensurate with the reason for discharge in accordance with the governing regulation in effect at the time. The separation authority determined his service did not rise to the level required for an honorable or a general 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) AR20160002628 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002628 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2