| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Sherri V. Ward | Member | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded.
The applicant does not indicate the date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice. He states that his "life has been living hell" and it would be in the interest of justice for the Board to consider this application.
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:
The applicant entered active duty on 25 January 1979. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).
The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), five times for being absent without leave (AWOL) on seven different occasions.
On 15 November 1979, a summary court-martial found the applicant guilty of AWOL, 5 June 1979 through 20 July 1979 and 23 and 24 October 1979, and failure to follow orders.
In December 1979, the applicant was notified that his command intended to commence discharge processing. He was afforded a physical examination and found to be qualified for separation.
On 29 January 1980, a formal recommendation was submitted to have the applicant discharged for misconduct, frequent incidents of discreditable act with civil or military authorities. Attached to the recommendation was a list of 65 actions or incidents, 49 of the entries were for separate and distinct infractions or offenses. The applicant waived his right to consult with counsel, have his case heard before a board of officers, to submit a statement on his own behalf and to be represented at a hearing by counsel. 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 approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be separated with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
The applicant was discharged on 5 February 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b(1) for frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.
The applicant failed to report for scheduled personal hearing, therefore, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), reviewed his case based on the record and denied on 23 January 1986.
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 23 January 1986, the date of the ADRB decision. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 23 January 1989.
The application is dated 29 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
__JNS___ ___SVW __MHM__ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2002074800 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021119 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | Deny |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064261C070421
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 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065966C070421
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. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, under other than honorable conditions, by reason of an administrative discharge for conduct triable by a court-martial on 11 January 1980. The applicant has not presented and the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100755C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709410
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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063473C070421
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 28 January 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board in an unanimous opinion, denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. The applicant has not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085879C070212
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. He has presented no evidence which...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606509C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant requests that his undesirable discharge 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. On 12 March 1972 the applicants commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged and that he receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709821
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. 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...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106580C070208
On 2 April 1980, the separation authority directed the applicant’s separation under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 with an UOTHC discharge. On 27 May 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after carefully considering the applicant’s case, determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The character references provided by the applicant were also considered, but his post service conduct alone is not...