APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded. The applicant states, in effect, that at the time of is discharge he was having problems with alcohol.
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 was born on 2 October 1956. He completed 11 years of formal education. On 29 May 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years. His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 63 (Category III). He completed the combat basic training.
On 6 March 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave from
17 January to 6 March 1975.
On 11 March 1975, a medical examination found the applicant medically fit for retention.
On 25 March 1975, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but declined to do so.
On 13 May 1975, the appropriate authority approved his request, reduced the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. On
30 May 1975, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 10 months and 5 days of creditable active service and had 57 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.
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.
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. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on
30 May 1975, the date the applicant was discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 30 May 1978.
The application is dated 13 February 1996, 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608829C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge. On 29 September 1975, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019237
On 2 May 1975, the applicant was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019032
On 26 April 1978, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. On 8 May 1978, the approving authority accepted the applicant's request for discharge and directed his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a UOTHC character of service. There is no record to show the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9105830
On 3 May 1979, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. DETERMINATION : The subject application was not submitted within the time required.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009409C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014687
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014967C071029
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000357
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. On 24 June 1975 after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004735
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be changed to "for the benefit of."
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000879C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. There is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his allegation or to show that he requested a hardship discharge.