| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to honorable.
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:
With 1 year, 3 months, and 23 days of prior service in the Army of the United States, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 April 1975 for a period of 3 years and the United States Army (USA) Unit of Choice Enlistment Option –USA Intelligence School, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Following just 7 weeks of AIT, the applicant's company commander recommended him for discharge under the provisions of chapter 13-5b(3), Army Regulation 635-200, for unsuitability. The recommendation was based upon the applicant's inability to adapt to military discipline. The company commander also noted that the applicant had accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 24 and 25 July 1975 for being incapacitated for the proper performance of his duty and for missing Reveille due to apathy. The applicant was advised of his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf or have his case heard by a board of officers.
On 28 August 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's discharge with a GD. Accordingly, on 3 September 1975, the applicant was discharged after completing 4 months and 5 days of creditable military service.
The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade. The ADRB, after considering his case on 11 October 1984, denied his request.
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 11 October 1984, the date on which the ADRB denied the applicant's request for a discharge upgrade. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 11 October 1987.
The application is dated 28 December 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.
Prior to reaching this determination, the Board looked at the applicant's entire submission and noted his contentions. 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 record that the Board considered the statue 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 time prescribed by law.
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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__kak___ _mhm____ __alr___ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067011 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020618 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19750903 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, c13-5b (3) |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.9405 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003753C070206
On 16 June 1975, the applicant’s unit commander submitted separation action to eliminate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 7, by reason of being under age (minority). It was also determined that It would be in the best interest of both the applicant and the United States Army to discharge him under the provision of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 7, as expeditiously as possible. After carefully evaluating the evidence of record in this case, it is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085219C070212
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. He stated that the applicant went AWOL because he was not getting along and did not like the training. The applicant has not presented and the records do not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085544C070212
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. The applicant has not presented and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059911C070421
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. There is no evidence, nor has the applicant provided any, to indicate that his discharge was unfair or unjust, or that he was physically unfit at the time of his discharge, and as such there is not basis to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008550C070205
The counselor recommended an immediate change in the applicant's attitude, that the applicant show respect to his superiors, that he perform the job he was trained to do, and perform those duties assigned to him without question. Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the requirements and procedures for the administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. As a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice to this Board expired on 10 December 1981.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088580C070403
The applicant is requesting correction of an error or injustice which occurred on 30 September 1976, the date his undesirable discharge (UD) was upgraded to a GD by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). At the time of the applicant's separation, a UD or a GD was appropriate. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057484C070420
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 4 February 1975 the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service and directed that he be issued an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010727C070208
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge (GD) as originally issued. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant's allegations pertinent to his psychiatric evaluation, the presentation of a GD to his commander, which he torn up, that his commander's attitude was racially prejudiced, and that racial...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002481C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 September 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050002481 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 unit commander recommended that the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers to determine whether he should be discharged before his expiration of his term of service. He had completed 1 year,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088829C070403
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. An under other than honorable...