Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707859
Original file (9707859.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded. He states, in effect, that he received the Soldier’s Medal and let it go to his head. He was told that he would receive an upgrade 30 days after his discharge.
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 26 April 1957. He completed 11 years of formal education. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 August 1974 for 3 years. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11C (Infantry Indirect Fire Crewman).
On 4 February 1975, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to repair.

On 24 September 1975, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failure to repair.

On 20 October 1975, the applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for heroism. There is some evidence in the records that he may have originally been recommended for the Soldier’s Medal.

On 6 February 1976, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being disrespectful towards his superior non-commissioned officer.

On 12 March 1976, the applicant received a local bar to reenlistment.

On 17 March 1976, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for possessing marijuana.

On an unknown date, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 18 to 23 November 1975, 19 to 21 April 1976 and 26 April to 5 June 1976.

On 16 June 1976, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf wherein he stated, “…reason for me going AWOL, Sir, is I wanted out of the Army…”

On 23 June 1976, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 30 July 1976, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 12 August 1976, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10 with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. He had completed 1 year, 9 months and 13 days of creditable active service and had 61 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

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 12 August 1976, the date the applicant was discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 12 August 1979.

The application is dated 26 January 1997. 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 | 9707859C070209

    Original file (9707859C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    He states, in effect, that he received the Soldier’s Medal and let it go to his head. On 12 August 1976, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10 with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019942

    Original file (20140019942.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 March 1976, the separation authority approved his request for discharge in lieu of court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge was carefully considered; however, there was insufficient evidence to support his request. _______ _ _x______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008884

    Original file (20140008884.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. Records show the applicant was 17 years of age at the time of his enlistment and age 19 at the time his commander initiated separation action under chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. Based on his record of misconduct, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001613

    Original file (20120001613.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides: * Letter from the ADRB, dated 6 August 1976 * Letter, from The Servant Center, Greensboro, NC, dated 9 December 2011 * Two letters of reference * Doctor's note, dated 30 November 2011 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel and without coercion, 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004844

    Original file (20080004844.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 1 March 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge, and directed that he receive an UD. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018416

    Original file (20140018416.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His records contain DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) showing his duty status changes as follows: * on 16 July 1976 – from present for duty to absent without leave (AWOL) * on 20 July 1976 – from AWOL to present for duty * on 27 July 1976 – from present for duty to AWOL * on 30 July 1976 – from AWOL to confinement by military authorities * on 3 August 1976 – from confinement by military authorities to present for duty 6. On 10 November 1976 after consulting with counsel, the applicant...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013468

    Original file (20100013468.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 June 1976, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) by reason of misconduct for frequent incidents of discreditable nature. On 26 July 1976, the convening/separation authority approved the report of board proceedings and ordered the applicant's discharge from the Army under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006167

    Original file (20140006167.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation from the Army with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. Further, his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. _______ _ _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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009411C080407

    Original file (20070009411C080407.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    An UOTHC discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial; however, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an UD. However, it does confirm he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge, and that he voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge. The evidence of record...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001092

    Original file (20130001092.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) to show he received a medical or honorable discharge. On 19 July 1974, as part of the enlistment process, the applicant completed a medical examination. If a Soldier is found unfit because of physical disability, this regulation provides for disposition of the Soldier according to applicable laws and regulations.