| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He states that he was told he could have the discharge upgraded but makes no statements and 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:
He entered active duty on 5 May 1977, at the age of 21, with 12 years of formal education and a GT (general technical) score of 99. He successfully completed basic, advanced individual, and airborne training without incident. In October 1977 he was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington.
On 10 November 1977 the applicant departed AWOL (absent without leave) and was dropped from the rolls of the Army on 9 December 1977. On 1 January 1978 he returned to military control.
When charges were preferred, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. His request acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge which he might receive. He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.
In a self-authored statement the applicant indicated that following basic, advanced individual, and airborne training he arrived at his "regular unit" and discovered that he "had to train the rest of [his] four year enlistment." He stated that he thought "all you had to do was go through ranger school and the rest would be kind of like a regular job." He noted that he tried to talk to his commander but "didn't get to talk to him" so he just went home. He stated that he knows he would never adjust to military life and while the Army would be good for people who liked it, it was not for him and as such he requested to be discharged.
His request was approved and on 26 January 1978 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
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.
There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, which would serve as a basis for the Board to upgrade his discharge.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 26 January 1978, the date applicant was discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 26 January 1981.
The application is undated but was received by the Board in March 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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__KAK __ __MHM__ __ALR __ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2002071044 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020618 |
| 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 | CY2004 | 20040010881C070208
Marla J. N. Troup | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 7 March 1978; therefore, the time for the applicant to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606862C070209
On 8 September 1978, 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. On 3 June 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicants request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004715C070206
The application submitted in this case is dated 18 March 2005. His DD Form 214 issued at the time of his discharge shows he had time lost during the periods of 15 November to 7 December 1977. Richard T. Dunbar ______________________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX |CASE ID |AR20050004715 | |SUFFIX | | |RECON | | |DATE BOARDED |20051208 | |TYPE OF DISCHARGE | | |DATE OF DISCHARGE | | |DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | | |DISCHARGE REASON | | |BOARD DECISION |(DENY) | |REVIEW AUTHORITY | | |ISSUES |267/rem lost time...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086602C070212
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. 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. Had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002102
He did not go AWOL because he was a bad Soldier, he went AWOL because his children needed him. On 8 August 1978, the Brigade Commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. On 21 August 1978, the separation authority, the Division Commander, approved his request for voluntary discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008698C070206
There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and they must indicate that they have been briefed and understand...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608196C070209
On 19 January 1979, 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. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076684C070215
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. 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. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001804
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable, general, or medical discharge and that his narrative reason for separation be changed to show that he was discharged by reason of physical disability. Accordingly, on 8 September 1978, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program. The evidence of records indicates that the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011092
The applicant states he completed BCT, but failed AIT (Advanced Individual Training). He failed to return from an authorized leave and was charged with 1 day of AWOL. There is no record the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade during that board's 15-year statute of limitations.