| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. John E. Denning | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge. The applicant states that he wants his family to be proud of him for fighting in Vietnam, and to be honored for his courage for fighting for this great nation when he dies. The applicant 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:
On 17 September 1970, he re-enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 6 years. He served in Vietnam from 31 January to 5 October 1971.
On 19 July 1971, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for the wrongful appropriation of a ¼ ton truck. His punishment was a forfeiture.
On 30 August 1971, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ for being found sleeping on post. His punishment was a forfeiture and extra duty.
On 20 September 1971, his commander preferred court-martial charges against him for two specifications of disobeying a lawful order, and for being found sleeping on post.
On 19 October 1971, the applicant, after consulting with legal counsel, voluntarily requested separation under the provisions of Amy Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
The applicant’s commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request. He stated that the applicant had been ineffective as a soldier, that as a mechanic he caused more breakdowns than he repaired, and when transferred to the ammunition section he caused additional problems, consistently mistreating equipment and disobeying orders.
The appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and authorized the issuance of an undesirable discharge certificate and directed his reduction to pay grade E-1.
On 6 November 1971, he was separated with an under other than honorable conditions discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in pay grade E-1. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates he had 2 years, 10 months and
14 days of creditable service.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
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 6 November 1971, the date of the applicant’s discharge. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 6 November 1974.
The application is dated 1 November 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 three-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__JNS __ __BJE __ __JED __ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065439 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020214 |
| 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. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9609924C070209
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: The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 30 March 1970, completed training and was assigned to a transportation company in Vietnam in August 1970. On 21 December 1971 the applicant consulted with counsel and requested discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006222
The discharge authority approved the applicant's request and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. On 24 August 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his characterization of service and reason for separation. It specifically addressed issuance of an UD for discharges issued under the provisions of Chapter 10 of this regulation; and d. under Chapter 10, a member who committed an offense or offenses for which...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068835C070402
His rehabilitation is not deemed possible.” The board recommended that, “In view of the findings, the board recommends that Private [applicant] be discharged from the service because of unfitness with issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.” The applicant was discharged on 6 July 1973 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the ADRB are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011735C070208
On 18 February 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 25 April 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and voted to deny the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP), required, in the absence of compelling reasons to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017141
Following counseling on 7 August 1971, the applicant submitted a voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. On 9 August 1973, after careful consideration of the applicant's military records and all other available evidence, the Army Discharge Review Board determined he was properly discharged and denied his request for a change in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075899C070403
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. Accordingly, on 8 May 1973, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000722
The applicant requests, in effect, an amendment or change to the charge of sleeping on duty in his court-martial orders and his DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)). He elected to refuse punishment under Article 15 and was sentenced to reduction to pay grade E-3 and restriction to the company for 60 days. However, the evidence shows he did not appeal the 8 November 1965 Article 15 punishment for sleeping on duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012299
On 21 August 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. At the time, an undesirable discharge was normally appropriate. _______ _ __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 this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069958C070402
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 24 November 1971, the applicant was separated with a GD. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711555
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 19 November 1963, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed he be reduced to pay grade E-1 and issued an...