ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 August 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180014452 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general under honorable conditions. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states: a. He was doing well during the first few months of service at basic combat training (BCT) and advanced individual training (AIT). While at Fort Lee, VA, he went absent without leave (AWOL) then he was transferred to Fort Gordon, GA for a psychiatric examination. He was told that he had the choice between staying in the service or to get out. He chose to get out. b. While at Fort Lee, he was told on numerous occasions that he could go home on a weekend to visit his family. As the weekend neared, he requested leave but was told that he had guard duty and could not leave Fort Lee. He became frustrated and felt he was being unfairly targeted, so he took a plane home and after three months, the deputy sheriff visited his house and took him under control and directed him to Fort Gordon. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 December 1972. He completed BCT and was reassigned to Fort Lee, VA for AIT. 4. While attending AIT, the applicant departed AWOL on 28 February 1973 and remained AWOL until he was apprehended by civilian authorities on 12 June 1973. 5. On 21 June 1973, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant based on his AWOL offense. 6. On 22 June 1973, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and 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. 7. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged the charges preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He further acknowledged: * he had not been subjected to coercion with respect to his request for discharge * he had been advised of the implications that were attached to the discharge * he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veteran's Administration * he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits and he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws * he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an undesirable discharge 8. In connection with the request for discharge, the applicant provided a statement stating he thought he could make it in the Army but found out that he could not. He also stated that he went AWOL because of family reasons, his mind could not adjust to the Army, and because he just wanted to be with his family. 9. On 9 July 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 10. The applicant's DD Form 214 confirms he was discharged on 26 July 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 also shows he was credited with 4 months and 7 days of active duty service and that he accrued 104 days of lost time. 11. On 16 July 2019, the Army Review Boards Agency clinical psychologist/medical advisor provided an advisory opinion. The advisory found no evidence of a mental and/or physical medical condition that would mitigate the applicant's misconduct which led to his discharge under other than honorable conditions. A copy of the complete medical advisory was provided to the Board for their review and consideration. 12. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 22 August 2019 and given an opportunity to submit comments. He did not respond. BOARD DISCUSSION: After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined relief is not warranted. The applicant’s contentions and the medical advisory opinion were carefully considered. The Board applied Department of Defense standards of liberal consideration to the complete evidentiary record and did not find any evidence of error, injustice, or inequity. The advisory official found no behavioral-health mitigating factors to his misconduct. He did not provide character witness statements or evidence of post- service achievements for the Board to consider. Based upon the lengthy period of AWOL, as well as the failure to accept responsibility and show remorse for the events leading to his separation, the Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization was warranted as a result of the misconduct. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION 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. 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10, in effect at the time, provides that a member who committed an offense or offenses under the UCMJ 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, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA 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. However, the discharge authority may direct an honorable or general discharge if warranted. b. Paragraph 3-7a provides that 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. Paragraph 3-7b provides that 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180014452 4 1