Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706828
Original file (9706828.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He states, in effect, that he is seeking a further upgrade based upon secret prior service with the CIA.
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 24 March 1946. He completed 12 years of formal education. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 October 1974 for 3 years. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 05F (Radio Teletype Operator).

On 20 August 1976, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for disobeying a lawful order.

On 19 May 1977, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of failing to go to his appointed place of duty and disobeying a lawful order. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 45 days, to be reduced to pay grade E-1, and to forfeit $100 pay for 2 months.

On 22 June 1977, the Army Retraining Brigade recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for frequent acts of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

On 5 July 1977, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. He had completed 2 years and 7 months of creditable active service and had 36 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13, then in effect, contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals when they were involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and it was established that further efforts at rehabilitation were unlikely to succeed or they are not amenable to rehabilitation measures.

On 8 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the applicant’s discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge. That Board determined that the command’s failure to obtain a proper mental status evaluation was prejudicial to the applicant because the command failed to determine the applicant’s psychiatric condition despite evidence of psychiatric problems shortly after his arrival at Fort Riley, KS

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. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the ADRB are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board’s exhaustion requirement (AR 15-185, paragraph 8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the ABCMR should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. In complying with this decision, the Board has adopted the broader policy of calculating the 3 year time limit from the date of exhaustion in any case where a lower level administrative remedy is utilized. The Board will continue to excuse any failure to timely file when 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 8 March 1982, the date the ADRB upgraded the applicant’s discharge. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 8 March 1985.

The application is dated 23 December 1996. 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


Loren G. Harrell
                                                      Director
                                                      

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9706828C070209

    Original file (9706828C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. On 22 June 1977, the Army Retraining Brigade recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for frequent acts of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091484C070212

    Original file (2003091484C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge on 13 July 1983. After reviewing all of the evidence in her case, the ADRB determined that her discharge properly characterized her service and voted unanimously to deny her request on 28 December 1983. Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 28 December 1983; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002994

    Original file (20110002994.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 13 May 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 due to misconduct based on his involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities and an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011425C070208

    Original file (20040011425C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 May 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the applicant's undesirable discharge to a general under honorable conditions discharge under the Special Discharge Review Program. This group could apply to a Presidential Clemency Board which was made up of individuals appointed by the President (members were civilians, retired military and members of the Reserve Components) who would establish a period of alternate service of not more than 24 months that the individuals...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006950C070205

    Original file (20060006950C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an honorable discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service included a bar to reenlistment, one special court-martial conviction, and 128 days of lost time.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016977

    Original file (20100016977.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The company commander stated that the reason for his recommendation for elimination were the applicant’s frequent acts of a discreditable nature in that he received one court-martial and three punishments under Article 15, UCMJ. On 10 February 1978, the separation authority waived rehabilitation requirements and approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, and directed the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006706

    Original file (20140006706.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his discharge, from an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge. The applicant states he would not have requested the discharge he received if he had better understood what the discharge meant. At the time, a UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate for Soldiers separated under chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005919

    Original file (20130005919.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He paid his fines every time he went AWOL and always came back to his unit. He was young and had so many problems while in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012296

    Original file (20060012296.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was discharged for misconduct, frequent incidents of a discreditable nature, which was evident by his six NJPs and one summary court-martial. Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003876C070205

    Original file (20060003876C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states, in effect, that he was discharged based on misconduct; however, reviewing his medical records, he should have been medically discharged. Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 6 January 1981, shows the applicant underwent a medical examination for the purpose of separation. Based on the facts above, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that shows he was medically unqualified to perform his military duties or that his medical condition was...