| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. Sherri V. Ward | Chairperson | |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Member | |
| Mr. James E. Anderholm | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable. He states that, at the time of his ETS (expiration of term of service), he was under the care of a mental health service, hospitalized and in jail. He desires to clear his record.
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:
On 7 May 1970, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.
The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) for the periods 15 to 18 June, 1 to 21 July, 25 July to 2 August, 14 to 15 August, and 18 August to 25 December 1970.
On 26 December 1970, his commander preferred court-martial charges against him, for being AWOL for the periods shown above and advised him of his rights.
On 15 January 1971, a report of psychiatric evaluation indicated the applicant was passive-aggressive, chronic, severe, manifested by oppositional, manipulative behavior.
On 19 January 1971, a physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.
On 25 January 1971, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He acknowledged that he was guilty; that he could receive an under other than honorable (UOTHC) discharge; and that he understood the effects of receiving such a discharge. He indicated he had consulted with legal counsel, that he had been fully advised of the nature of his rights, and the facts, which must be established by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain a finding of guilty. He also was informed of the possible defenses, which appeared to be available at the time and the maximum permissible punishment if he were found guilty.
On 26 February 1971, the appropriate separation authority approved his request and directed his discharge UOTHC with a UD Certificate (UDC).
On 26 February 1971, he was discharged with an UOTHC and the issuance of an UDC. His separation document indicates he had 4 months and 4 days of creditable service and 166 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could at any time after the charges had been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an UOTHC discharge with issuance of an UDC.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. 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 inappropriate.
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 26 February 1971, the date he was discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 26 February 1974.
The application is dated 15 January 2001 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
_jea____ _svw____ _gdp____ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001053426 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010410 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1.110 | 110.000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052481C070420
On 13 September 1972, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under other than honorable conditions with an UDC, under Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000779
On 21 April 1971, the applicant's Commanding General (CG) was notified that the investigation revealed that the applicant initially enlisted in the RA on 30 September 1966 and that on 10 June 1969, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to misconduct. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct. There is no evidence in the available records nor has the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606803C070209
On 9 December 1971, the applicant was notified that the commander was recommending a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for fraudulent entry, and that the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged before the expiration term of his service. On 8 February 1972, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for fraudulent entry with a discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607185C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded. On 15 July 1971, 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 | CY2001 | 2001061348C070421
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 | CY2002 | 2002066311C070402
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. On 21 June 1972, the applicant requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083943C070212
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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070606C070402
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. 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. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509654C070209
On 21 May 1970, while serving in Vietnam, he reenlisted, in pay grade E-3, for 3 years. On 12 January 1971, the applicants commander submitted a request recommending that the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers convened under Army Regulation 635-212 for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service. The applicants DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071686C070403
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. Nevertheless, the applicant could not have been referred for disability processing because of the nature of his offenses, for which he received a bad conduct...