Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605366C070209
Original file (9605366C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to general.

PURPOSE:  To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He entered active duty on 1 May 1970 and by December 1970 had accumulated several periods of AWOL and was punished three times under Article 15, UCMJ.  In March 1971 he was punished a fourth time under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to be at his appointed place of duty and received a Summary Court-martial for wrongfully appropriating a military vehicle.

On 9 April 1971 he was again reported as AWOL.  He was apprehended by military authorities on 24 August 1972.  When charges were preferred he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His request acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge which he might receive.  He did not submit any statements on his own behalf.

The separation authority approved the request and on 27 September 1972 he was separated with an undesirable discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 10 months and 22 days of creditable service and more than 500 days lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

DISCUSSION:  The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 
27 September 1972, the date of his discharge.  The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 27 September 1975.

The application is dated 2 December 1995 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.

DETERMINATION:  The subject application was not submitted within the time required.  The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law.

BOARD VOTE:

                      EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE

                      GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                      CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION




		Karl F. Schneider
		Acting Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061348C070421

    Original file (2001061348C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004570

    Original file (20080004570.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His records do not show any significant acts of valor during his military service. Item 44 (Time Lost Under Section 972, Title 10, United States Code) of the applicant DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows the applicant was reported absent without leave (AWOL) during the periods 23 January 1970 to 27 February 1970; 2 May 1971 to 2 June 1971; 6 December 1971 to 20 January 1972; 13 March 1972 to 19 March 1972; and 16 April 1972 to 7 May 1972. On 5 June 1972, the separation...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017942

    Original file (20100017942.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood by requesting discharge he understood if the discharge request was approved, he may be discharged under conditions other than honorable and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 18...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011417

    Original file (20080011417.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 17 November 1971, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10, for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. The character of the discharge is commensurate...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017692

    Original file (20060017692.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. On 31 May 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 14 June 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006029C070206

    Original file (20050006029C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 March 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an Undesirable Discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002103C070206

    Original file (20050002103C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 February 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 22 March 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. The applicant’s record of service included five nonjudicial punishments and 171 days of lost time.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2002 | 2002083109

    Original file (2002083109.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant's Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Proceedings, dated 21 May 1980, shows that he received three punishments under Article 15, the Uniform Code...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004752C070206

    Original file (20050004752C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that all of the blocks on his DD Form 214 be completed and that he be provided an explanation of why he received a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge on 11 January 1974 and that board found that his discharge was both proper and equitable and denied his request on 6 February 1974. That regulation also provided that information blocks contained on the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076496C070215

    Original file (2002076496C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the deceased former service member’s (FSM’s) undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, at the time of the applicant's...