| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge. The applicant states, in effect, that he was young and naive when he started having family problems, which lead to a chain of bad decisions and to the offense culminating in his discharge. He states that his discharge was based on one isolated incident in over 30 months of service.
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 record shows that:
The applicant entered active duty on 13 November 1979 at age 17. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman). His first assignment was with Company A, 1st Battalion, 10th Infantry Division at Ft. Carson, Colorado. The highest pay grade he is shown to have held was private.
The applicant received nonjudicial punishment on two occasions for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 19 September 1980 through 22 September 1980 and again from 8 July 1982 through 9 August 1982.
The applicant again went AWOL, on 7 September 1982, and remained absent until he was apprehended by civilian authorities in California. He was returned to military control at Ft. Ord, California where, on 18 March 1983, court-martial charges were preferred for a third AWOL period, 7 September 1982 through 13 March 1983.
After consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that he could receive an UOTHC discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an UOTHC discharge, and that there is no automatic upgrading or review of a less than honorable discharge.
The discharge authority accepted his request and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions and a narrative reason of for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. In accordance with the regulation, he was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. The applicant was discharged on 28 April 1983.
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board and, on 2 May 1995, by unanimous decision he was denied any change in the reason or character of discharge.
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.
The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, sets forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the UCMJ. A punitive discharge is authorized for desertion terminated in apprehension or AWOL in excess of 30 days.
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 2 May 1995, the date of ADRB decision. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 2 May 1998.
The application is dated 26 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.
| CASE ID | AR2002066848 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020530 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.9307 |
| 2. | 144.9231 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000382C070206
The applicant requests his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The records show that the applicant submitted his application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064698C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 25 November 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for upgrade of his discharge. The applicant’s contention that his command violated his medical profile and denied his request to change his MOS is not supported by the available evidence of record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015506C071029
On 17 February 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge, and directed he receive an UOTHC discharge. An UOTHC discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. The evidence of record further shows that after being AWOL for more than 800 day, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087826C070212
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: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDARSUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDEDTYPE OF DISCHARGE(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)DATE OF DISCHARGEDISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR DISCHARGE REASONBOARD DECISION(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)REVIEW AUTHORITYISSUES 1.2.3.4.5.6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106658C070208
Brenda K. Koch | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. On 1 September 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted to deny the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge after concluding that his discharge was proper and equitable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052937C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001052937SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20010830TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGEDISCHARGE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084619C070212
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. On 3 May 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. The Board notes the applicant submitted all the paperwork required by the Army to obtain a compassionate reassignment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011095
On 15 August 1983, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued a UOTHC discharge certificate. He had completed a total of 1 year, 3 months, and 9 days of creditable active military service and had accrued a total of 165 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006883C070208
On 31 August 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge. 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. In order to justify...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063909C070421
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: However, an Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report and Directive, dated 15 February 1985, shows the applicant was charged with the above AWOL offense on 28 June 1983.