| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to upgrade his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to honorable. He indicates the error or injustice was kicking him out 6 months before the expiration of his term of service. Further, he indicates that he was discharged after 6 months of drug rehabilitation and passed. He has been getting off of drugs since 1974.
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 8 July 1971, he enlisted in the Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13A (Field Artillery Basic).
On 20 November 1972, he accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) on 8 November 1972. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended), a forfeiture of $50 and extra duty for 7 days.
On 16 June 1973, he was entered into the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Control Program (ADACP) for his use of Heroin, Darvon, Hashish, Marijuana and other psychostimulants.
On 16 August 1973, an ADACP status report indicated he had received one NJP since his referral into the program. The commander and the therapist’s opinion of his progress were good.
On 16 October 1973, an ADACP status report indicated he had been arrested once, accepted NJP on 2 occasions and had one other report of punishment since his last status report. The report indicates he had been tested on 6 occasions and tested positive on each. The commander and the therapist’s opinion is now shown as poor. The applicant did not successfully complete the ADACP. The additional NJP’s are not shown in the available records.
On 27 November 1973, he accepted NJP for being AWOL during the period 1 through 12 October 1973. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $163 pay per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days and extra duty for 45 days.
On 4 January 1974, a physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.
On 7 January 1974, the unit commander preferred court-martial charges against him for the wrongful possession of cocaine on 12 October 1973 and the wrongful possession of a hypodermic syringe and needle.
On 14 January 1974, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged that he could receive a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge; that he was guilty of the charges against him; that he had consulted with legal counsel; and, that he had no desire to perform further military service.
On 18 January 1974, the appropriate separation authority approved his request, directed his reduction to pay grade E-1 and that a UOTHC discharge be issued.
On 30 January 1974, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with a UOTHC discharge, under the above-cited regulation. His separation document indicates he had 2 years, 6 months and 23 days of creditable service and 12 days of lost time.
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.
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 a discharge UOTHC.
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.
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 January 1974, 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 January 1977.
The application is dated 10 August 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. Prior to reaching this determination the Board looked at the applicant's entire file. It was only after all aspects of the case had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of his record that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it would have recommended relief in spite of the applicant's failure to submit the application within the three-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
_mhm___ _rks____ _jlp____ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061642 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011120 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071854C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: He stated that he was proud of his Vietnam service but was ashamed of the conduct which led to his court-martial and to his present situation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9506410C070209
He was advanced to pay grade E-2 effective 22 May 1973. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) indicates that he was discharged on 26 July 1974, in pay grade E-1, under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5a, with an UD certificate (character of service UOTHC). 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 | CY1995 | 9509132C070209
On 1 March 1974, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, by reason of unfitness with a discharge UOTHC. On 7 March 1974, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC. DETERMINATION: The subject application was not submitted within the time required.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057931C070420
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. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), then in effect, set forth the basic...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090881C070212
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence of record to show the applicant was denied medical treatment for an injured right hand at any time. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested and, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013839,
There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The discharge proceedings appear to have been conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003209
The applicant's record does not contain and he has not provided any evidence that shows he was diagnosed with PTSD-like symptoms during his military service or that shows he was diagnosed with PTSD after his military service. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050014035C070206
William F. Crain | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant’s military record shows that he had an extensive disciplinary history of military infraction and based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly shows that his discharge was appropriate because the quality of service determined at the time of discharge was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711151
He completed 12 years of formal education. On 27 February 1975, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unfitness - frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with authorities 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 | 2001065929C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: A condition of submitting such a request is that they must admit guilt to the charges preferred against them or a lesser included offense which would also result in a punitive discharge.