BOARD DATE: 30 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160013915 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: 30 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160013915 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: 30 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160013915 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 his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he entered the service at the age of 17 with his mother's consent. He was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, MO, for basic training then he was assigned to Fort Gordon, GA, where he attended classes and was an honor graduate from the Signal School. Subsequently he was assigned to Fort Carson, CO, where he worked in military occupational specialty (MOS) 36H (dial/manual central office repairer). 3. He made a decision that has haunted and embarrassed him all of his life. He made the stupidest mistake in his life by getting into his car and driving off. His father retired from the Army, served in several military actions, and was willing to help him straighten out the mess he had made. He did not listen to his father and regrets this decision. He went to the Department of Veterans Affairs for assistance and was told to take a step forward to fix his situation. He has spent his whole life trying to do the right thing. He has never been in trouble, worked hard, helped others, and served his country. The skills he learned provided him a means to take care of his family and he appreciates the training he received. He asks that his discharge be re-evaluated. 4. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Diploma from U.S. Army Signal School * Certificate of Appreciation * four Certificates of Completion * two Career Enhancement University Certificates * Letter of Appreciation * Two character references 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 18 May 1960 and enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 June 1977 at the age of 17. He completed basic combat training at Fort Leonard Wood and was reassigned to Fort Gordon for advanced individual training (AIT). At the completion of AIT, he was assigned to Fort Carson in duty MOS 36H. 3. On 12 May 1981, court-martial charges were preferred against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 13 November 1978 to 3 May 1981. 4. On 12 May 1981, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged. He acknowledged that he made this request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion by any person. He did not submit statements in his own behalf. He was advised he could receive an UOTHC discharge and of its effects. 5. On 1 May 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial with the issuance of an UOTHC discharge and reduction to private/E-1. 6. On 2 June 1981, the Army discharged him with a UOTHC character of service. He completed 1 year, 3 months, and 22 days of total active military service with lost time from 13 November 1978 to 2 May 1981. 7. His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board 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 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, 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. A UOTHC characterization of service would normally be furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the Service. b. Paragraph 3-7 states 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's service record show charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from on or about 13 November 1978 to 3 May 1981. 2. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The evidence shows that after receiving advice from legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. All requirements of law and regulation were met, and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 3. An UOTHC characterization of service was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under chapter 10. The evidence of record does not indicate the actions taken in the applicant's case were in error or unjust. 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) AR20160013915 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160013915 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2