| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Paul Wright | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Member | |
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be changed to General or Honorable. He indicates that he "went to Chicago in '86" about this matter, but he never got an answer to his upgrade 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 11 June 1980, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years and later extended an additional 8 months to qualify for movement of his dependents for a tour of duty in Germany. He successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B10, Cannon Crewman.
Upon graduation from advanced individual training, the applicant was assigned to duty at Howitzer Battery, 1st Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Bliss, Texas, as a Cannon Crewman.
On 20 July 1981, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to go to duty on 7 July 1981. Punishment included 14 days of extra duty and forfeiture of $100.00 pay.
On 25 August 1981, he accepted NJP for being found in a privately owned vehicle while being posted as a sentinel of the motor pool. Punishment included 14 days of extra duty, forfeiture of $116.00, and reduction to pay grade E-1 (suspended for 90 days).
On/about 28 December 1981, the applicant was transferred to assignment in Germany. He obtained an 8-month enlistment extension to qualify for the movement of his dependents to this assignment. In Germany, he performed duty as a Cannoneer and an Ammo Handler while being assigned to the C Battery, 1st Battalion, 18th Field Artillery Brigade. He was later assigned to A Battery, 1st Battalion, 18th Field Artillery Brigade.
On an unknown date, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for possession and distribution of marijuana. The charge sheet is missing from the record.
On 20 March 1984, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 after consulting with counsel. He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The applicant's company, battalion, and brigade commanders all recommended approval of the request with the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) Discharge.
On 4 April 1984, the General Court-Martial Convening Authority approved the discharge and directed the issuance of a UOTHC Discharge and immediate reduction to pay grade E-1.
On 17 April 1984, the applicant was separated with a UOTHC Discharge. He was credited with 3 years, 10 months, and 3 days of active federal service, and he had 5 days of lost time. His DD Form 214 shows that he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal and the Army Service Ribbon.
On 21 July 1987, the applicant and counsel appeared before the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) panel in Chicago, Illinois. The ADRB denied his request for an upgrade.
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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, 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 21 July 1987, the date the ADRB denied his appeal. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 21 July 1990.
The application is dated 23 January 2002 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. In addition, the Board rejects his issue he has waited this long to apply because he never heard from the ADRB. There is no evidence that the notification to him was returned as being undeliverable and he had ample opportunity during the interim time frame to inquire to the ADRB what the decision was, if he did not receive a copy.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__jns___ __inw___ __jam___ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068224 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020815 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19840417 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, Chap 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A53.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.5300 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013253
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show the Army Achievement Medal and issuance of the medal. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the Army Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency, and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011813
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 January 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090011813 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Also, he was assigned to Germany following his initial entry training and while there he developed a drug habit.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100675C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The evidence of record shows he received excellent EERs, award of the Army Achievement Medal, and the second award of the Army Good Conduct Medal during the period of service under review. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected: a. by showing he was discharged on 27 January 1986 with a general discharge in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9510422C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded. On 14 March 1984, the appropriate authority approved his request, reduced the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. On 4 April 1984, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge UOTHC.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007205
The applicant requests, in effect, correction to Item 12 (Last Duty Assignment and Major Command) of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report or Transfer or Discharge). Item 12 of his DD Form 214 shows his last duty assignment and major command was Service Battery, 7th Battalion, 18th Artillery, 197th Infantry Brigade. __________X___________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015430
Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides for the issuance of certificates of achievement. It states commanders may recognize periods of faithful service, acts, or achievements which do not meet the standards required for decorations by issuing a DA Form 2442 (Certificate of Achievement) or a certificate of achievement (or appreciation) of local design to individual U.S. military personnel. Although copies of certificates of achievement or memoranda of record stating that a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013986
The applicant requests award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) and that his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show that he was a specialist (SPC/E-4) or a sergeant (SGT/E-5). There is no evidence nor did the applicant submit any evidence that shows he held an infantry MOS during any of his assignments in the RVN. The evidence of record shows that at the time of his separation on 15 October 1975, the applicant held the rank/grade of PFC/E-3.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089909C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that his supervisor stated that the DD Form 214 that he has only shows his boot camp and ADT (active duty for training) service. The applicant was provided a DD Form 214 to document this service in compliance with the applicable regulation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021837
The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows: a. he was discharged under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-4c due to unsuitability - apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend effort constructively, with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service; and b. he received the Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle and Grenade Bars....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077496C070215
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. In September 1981 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. The applicant's contention that he was depressed,...