IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 August 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160011149 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 IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 August 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160011149 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 August 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160011149 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 undesirable discharge to general under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states he was young and made a mistake. His son was hit by an ice cream truck and received extensive head trauma and wasn't expected to live. His leave request was denied. He went to see his son and was absent without leave (AWOL). He has always regretted that decision, but he felt it was necessary at the time. He is a good citizen. 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 born on 22 September 1953. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 January 1974 for a period of 4 years. He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11C (Infantry Indirect Fire Crewman). 3. On 28 June 1974, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty. 4. On 15 October 1974, court-martial charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from 5 August 1974 to 13 August 1974 and from 16 August 1974 to 10 October 1974. 5. On 31 October 1974, during an interview the applicant stated he could not adjust to Army life and he was needed more at home to support his mother. He did not request a hardship discharge because he was told he could not qualify. He further stated he desired to be permanently separated from the Army. 6. On 10 November 1974 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. In summary, he stated he could not adjust to military living and that he had problems at home that could not be resolved as long as he was in the service. 7. On 14 November 1974, the separation authority approved his voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 8. On 22 November 1974, 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 7 months and 4 days of creditable active service with 63 days of lost time. His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. 9. On 4 December 1980, 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 (currently known as the Department of Veterans Affairs) 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. 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. The applicant contends he was young and made a mistake. He was 20 years old when he enlisted and there is no evidence indicating he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military terms of service. 2. Although he now contends he was AWOL because his son was hit by an ice cream truck and received extensive head trauma and wasn't expected to live, on 31 October 1974 he stated he went AWOL because he could not adjust to Army life and that he was needed more at home to support his mother. 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. The type of discharge directed and the reason for his discharge were in accordance with the Army policies in effect at the time of his separation. 5. His brief record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 63 days of lost time. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160011149 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160011149 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2