| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded. He states that he is not seeking any benefits, only peace of mind. He offers no date of discovery or reason for the Board to excuse his 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 excuse the failure to timely file.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show that:
The applicant entered active duty on 23 November 1970. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). Subsequently, he completed basic parachutist training. Throughout his training, his conduct and efficiency were reported as excellent.
He was assigned to Company B, 1st Battalion (Airborne), 508th Infantry Regiment, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
On 22 May 1972, the applicant was reported absent without leave (AWOL). He voluntarily returned to military control at Fort Ord, California on 4 October 1972.
On 4 October 1972, charges were preferred for that AWOL offense. The applicant acknowledged his rights and that the offense committed could result in a bad conduct discharge.
On 6 October 1972, after conferring with legal counsel, he submitted a request for a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. In the statement submitted at that time, the applicant explained that he had gone AWOL because an early out was revoked and because if he was not released, he would lose a lot of money in a business that he had started. He stated that the only way for him not to lose a lot of money or the business entirely was to be released as soon as possible.
His chain of command reviewed the evidence and recommended that he be separated from active duty for the good of the service under other than honorable conditions. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade (E-1), separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 and given an undesirable discharge certificate.
The applicant was discharged on 23 November 1972, under other than honorable conditions. His records show that he is credited with 1 year, 9 months and 14 days of service with 135 days lost.
The applicant's DD Form 214 ( Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal and the Marksman Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.
The applicant's file was reviewed under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) on 17 October 1977. It was determined that his circumstances did not meet the requirements for an automatic upgrade; therefore, he was denied any change of the characterization of his service or the reason for 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.
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 17 October 1977, the date of the SDRP review. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 17 October 1980.
The application is dated 8 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.
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
__TSK___ ___JTM_ ___HBO_ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067655 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020711 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | Deny |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017103C071029
The applicant departed Vietnam on 4 December 1972. Such absence must have been the basis for discharge under other than honorable conditions and is computed without regard to expiration of term of service; and (2) prospective disqualification for receipt of VA benefits for those originally qualifying as a result of upgrade by Presidential Memorandum of 19 January 1977 or the SDRP, unless an eligibility determination is made under the published uniform standards and procedures. It appears...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020771
The applicant requests that his general discharge be affirmed. After consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service. Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time and that the ADRB later upgraded the applicant's discharge from an undesirable discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005637C070206
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general or honorable discharge. The applicant was discharged on 22 January 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the type of discharge and the narrative reason issued to him was in error or unjust.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006954C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 January 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050006954 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. He further states that his discharge was upgraded under the Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Program (DOD-SDRP) but was not affirmed. Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091230C070212
Counsel requests that the Board grant the applicant an upgrade of his discharge. After consulting with military counsel on 20 September 1973, he requested to appear before a board of officers to determine if he should be retained on active duty. That board recommended that he be eliminated from the service for unfitness under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-4.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050016250C070206
On 20 April 1977, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge under the Department of Defense (DOD) Discharge Review Program (SDRP). This program, known as the DOD Discharge Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003552
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests affirmation of the upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general discharge under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP). On 18 May 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted to upgrade the applicant's undesirable discharge to a general discharge under the provisions of the SDRP.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058887C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : That he received an undesirable discharge in 1972; however, he requested a change to that discharge and his discharge was upgraded to under honorable conditions. On 19 November 1976 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000358
The applicant requests, in effect, affirmation of his general discharge under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP). In February 1979, the ADRB, having re-reviewed the applicant's case as required by Public Law 95-126, determined not to affirm the recharacterization of his discharge. _______ _ 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 | CY2012 | 20120011752
On 13 September 1973, the applicant was discharged accordingly. In the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, this program, known as the DOD SDRP, required that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal, had received an honorable discharge from a previous period of service, or had a...