| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. :Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a medical discharge or anything under honorable conditions. The applicant states, in effect, that he had a bad back when he was drafted into the military and he still has a bad back.
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 9 April 1952, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for a period of 2 years. The applicant completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 1822 (Utilities Repairman).
On 26 August 1952, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of breaking restriction and of the wrongful use of another soldier’s liberty pass. He was sentenced to 30 days confinement at hard labor and a forfeiture of $57.00 pay.
On 23 December 1952, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being absent without leave from 2 September to 8 November 1952. He was sentenced to
6 months confinement at hard labor and a forfeiture of $25.00 pay per month for 6 months.
On 28 June 1953, the applicant’s record indicates that the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for missing formation. The particulars are missing from his file.
On 11 July 1953, a mental and a physical examination found the applicant mentally and physically fit for retention. There was no evidence of psychosis or neurosis or other disorders qualifying him for disposition through medical channels. He was considered mentally competent to participate in board proceedings.
On 18 July 1953, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, for unfitness, and that he would be required to appear before a board of officers for the purpose of determining whether the applicant should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service. The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.
On 4 August 1953, the applicant appeared before a board of officers with counsel. The board of officers found the applicant undesirable for further retention and recommended an undesirable discharge.
On 2 September 1953, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On
26 September 1953, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, for unfitness with a UD. He had completed 1 year, 1 month and 24 days of creditable active service and 114 days of time lost.
Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel. Unfitness included, in pertinent part, habits and traits of character manifested by antisocial or amoral trends. When discharged because of unfitness, a UD was issued. (Board proceedings are required).
There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any evidence to show why his discharge should be upgraded or changed to a medical discharge.
On 24 August 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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 Discharge Review Board (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 denial 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 24 August 1982, the date the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 24 August 1985.
The application is dated 8 September 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 this 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 his application within the three-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__aao___ __le____ __jtm___ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062655 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011127 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19530926 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR615-368 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.5100 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004115
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 August 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070004115 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The records available to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records were provided in part by the applicant and from reconstructed records. On 14 August 1953, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050018247C070206
On 10 June 1981 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001542
Should the command deem his performance to be useless to the service the applicant was to be separated from the military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Unfitness), by reason of unfitness. The applicant was credited with 1 year, 7 months, and 10 days of active military service. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059810C070421
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 11 January 1954, the applicant’s commander requested that he appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010738
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded. The applicant had already exceeded the 15-year statute of limitations to petition the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge when he submitted his DD Form 293 to that board on 12 June 2006. Individuals discharged under this regulation would normally be issued an UD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051941C070420
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 | CY1997 | 9708848
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 | CY2015 | 20150001307
On 28 June 1953, the FSM's unit recommended a board of officers be convened to determine whether the FSM should be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Unfitness). The certificate, dated 12 June 1953, issued by the Psychiatry and Neurology Service, USAH, Camp Atterbury, essentially stated: * the FSM's diagnosis was anti-social personality manifested by immaturity, impulsive behavior, lack of adequate standards of behavior, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708848C070209
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 | CY2011 | 20110023449
The applicant states that he enlisted in the Regular Army in 1952 and served for almost 2 years and was unjustly given an undesirable discharge because he was unable to read. Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness. _______ _ _ 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...