| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Member | |
| Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge be upgraded. Although the applicant's military service was uncharacterized, he states, in effect, that he would like his general discharge upgraded to an honorable discharge. He notes that he recalls seeing a "court case" settlement posted in a "public building" during the early 1980's, which was "similar to [his] discharge," and believes his discharge should be upgraded as well. He submits no evidence in support of his request.
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 entered active duty on 9 December 1982. While undergoing training at Fort Benning, Georgia, he was placed in an excess leave status (presumably because of the holiday season) between 25 December 1982 and 2 January 1983.
Upon resuming training, the applicant was counseled on three separate occasions for failing to meet minimum qualification standards on the M-16. The applicant enlisted for training as an infantryman.
On 12 February 1983 the applicant's commander initiated action to separate the applicant, from active duty, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11 (entry level status performance and conduct). The commander cited the applicant's failure to qualify with the M-16 as the basis for his recommendation. The applicant acknowledged receipt and waived his attendant rights.
The recommendation was approved, and on 1 March 1983 the applicant was discharged. His service was "uncharacterized."
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 11 of that regulation provides for the separation of personnel in an entry level status for unsatisfactory performance or conduct as evidenced by inability, lack of reasonable effort or a failure to adapt to the military environment. These provisions apply only to individuals whose separation processing is started within 180 days of entry into active duty. An uncharacterized separation is mandatory under this chapter.
It is possible that the applicant may, in his application to the Board, be referring to a 1979 court order, commonly is referred to as the "Giles Decision" which was a court-imposed program initiated in November 1979, which directed that an honorable discharge was mandated where the results of a compelled urinalysis given in connection with a drug treatment program were introduced by the government in the discharge process. However, the Giles Decision would not have been applicable to the applicant since his separation was based on performance and not a urinalysis.
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.
There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that his discharge was in error or unjust, and as such there is no basis to change the character of his service.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 1 March 1983, the date the applicant was discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 1 March 1986.
The application is dated 27 October 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 his 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 3 year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___SLP _ __SK ___ __EJA___ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065425 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020319 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 142.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
CG | BCMR | Alcohol and Drug Cases | 2004-183
of the current Personnel Manual permits the administrative inspection of any unit, regular or Reserve, by mandatory urinalysis “to determine and maintain the unit’s security, military fitness, and good order and discipline.” Under Article 20.C.3.e., a positive urinalysis test result is sufficient to prove a drug incident. The applicant received his general discharge in 1985. Moreover, as the JAG stated, the applicant’s reliance on Article 31 of the UCMJ and the decision in Giles...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9008849
APPLICANT REQUESTS : That the Board reverse its previous action which denied his application for failure to timely apply, and consider the merits of the application. NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION : In support of the current request, the applicant has submitted the new contention that the Giles v. Secretary of the Army (Civil Action 77-0904) applied to him. DISCUSSION : After considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant with the current request,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013604
The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) characterization of service to an honorable discharge (HD). After consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. a. Subsequent to a legal review, the Staff Judge Advocate stated on a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020557
The applicant requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 1 April 1974, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013699
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 April 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060013699 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. This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008176C071029
The military records of these individuals were to be reviewed to determine whether there was direct or indirect evidence of compelled urinalysis introduced by the government into the administrative discharge process which resulted in their separation with a less than fully honorable discharge and, if so, the former Army service member was entitled to an honorable discharge 7. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The applicant’s...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2007-216
I understand that if this request is approved I will receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions. On October 17, 1991, the Commandant approved the applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions for the good of the Service. There is no evidence in the record that the Coast Guard ever promised the applicant anything but a discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of re- sentencing hearing.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009762
The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence indicating the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Based on the seriousness of his offense and in view of the fact that he voluntarily requested to be discharged in order to avoid a trial by court-martial that could have resulted in a punitive discharge, his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017198
On 26 January 1983, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) for rehabilitative failure of the ADAPCP due to drug abuse. The commander stated that it was determined further rehabilitative efforts were not practical and rendered the applicant a rehabilitative failure. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000797
The separation authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant on 16 March 1983, and directed he receive a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 4 April 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, by reason of drug abuse rehabilitative failure. The evidence of record shows he was enrolled in the ADAPCP after a positive urinalysis test.