| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyl | Member | |
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Through counsel, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be pardoned or waived, or, in effect, upgraded. Counsel states that due to the applicant’s youth, recent arrival in the United States (US) (4 months prior to enlisting) and his short education, he made a mistake enlisting in the Army. Counsel also states the applicant realized the mistake within two weeks of enlisting that his lack of the English language prevented him from understanding orders and his original contract which was written in English. Counsel submits documents from the State Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request in support of the application.
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 enlisted in the Regular Army at age 21, as a private, pay grade E-1, on 12 June 1968 for 2 years.
He was reported absent without leave on 1 July 1968. On 30 July 1968 he was dropped from the rolls as a deserter.
On 3 August 1968, his commander advised The Adjutant General, that the applicant had absented himself from his unit/organization as of 3 August 1968 and he had failed to return. The applicant’s next of kin were notified as to his absence and return notification as to his whereabouts was received from some relatives. The applicant was in Bogata, Colombia; his home of record.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation advised the Army that the applicant had been residing in Bogota, Colombia since 19 February 1969 and that the applicant stated he would like to return to the US and complete his military obligation when and if his mother recovered from her illness.
On 25 May 1973, he was notified in writing, at his last known address in Colombia, South America, that he was charged with desertion from the US Army and thereby being discharged for that reason.
He was discharged in pay grade E-1 for “Alien DFR [Dropped From The Rolls of the Army] For More Than One Year” under conditions other than honorable on
23 August 1973. He had a total of 19 days net service and a total of 1873 days time lost.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities, and desertion or absence without leave. The regulation does not provide for pardons or waivers of this type of discharge.
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 23 August 1973, the date of his discharge. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 23 August 1976.
The application is dated 18 July 2001 and the applicant nor counsel have 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:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_jam____ _inw____ _tl_____ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062075 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011218 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A70 |
| 2. | 106.00 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03098711C070212
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant states that he was granted a “clemency discharge” in 1976 and just recently received a copy of his Department of Defense Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty). On 16 October 1972 the applicant’s bad conduct discharge was executed and he was discharged under other than honorable conditions and issued a Bad Conduct Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014827
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge to an honorable discharge. The complete facts and circumstances concerning the applicant's discharge proceedings are not in the available records; however, on 3 December 1970, the general court-martial convening authority approved the applicant's request for excess leave without pay pending execution of his bad conduct discharge. The applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge because he received a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005298
On 14 May 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed the applicant's military records and all other available evidence and denied the applicant's request for a change in the character and reason of discharge. Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted. Ann M. Campbell ______________________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054008C070420
APPLICANT STATES : On 20 January 2001, he received a “full and unconditional pardon” from the President of the United States in the matter for which the Army dropped him from the rolls and removed him from the Colonel’s promotion list. In general, a pardon is granted on the basis of a petitioner’s demonstrated good conduct for a substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020231
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate at a time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004848
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). By regulation, an under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for members separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, and an UD was authorized at the time of the applicant's discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083935C070212
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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. There is no evidence that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008238
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 October 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120008238 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 17 August 1973, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations Discharge Misconduct (Fraudulent Entry, Conviction by Civil Court, and Absence Without Leave or Desertion)) for prolonged AWOL - unauthorized absence in excess of 1 year. On 4 September...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000079C070205
He goes on to state that he served his tour of duty in Vietnam and was honorably discharged. He further states that his two tours in Vietnam, along with the Presidential Pardon he obtained and his subsequently successful civilian employment should justify an upgrade of his discharge. Accordingly, the Board determined that the applicant should be excused for failing to timely file for the upgrade of his discharge and to grant him an honorable discharge based on clemency.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013771
The applicant requests, in effect, that his clemency discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. On 12 August 1968, the separation authority approved the applicant's commander's recommendation and directed that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Although the applicant may have been granted a clemency discharge with a full and unconditional pardon, the clemency discharge does not mitigate the reason for his separation and character of service upon being discharged.