| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member | |
| Mr. Robert J. Osborn, II | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show he was honorably discharged. He indicates the punishment was harsh considering his Vietnam service and the stress he was under after being wounded in Vietnam.
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 1 June 1966, the applicant enlisted in the Army and was trained as a Communication Crewman.
During the period 4 May to 8 June 1968, he served in Vietnam as an Armor Intelligence Specialist. He received a gunshot wound to the arm and was evacuated. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he was awarded the Purple Heart.
On 28 September 1968, he absented himself without authority.
On 8 December 1969, he was convicted in civil court on two charges of burglary in Knox County, Tennessee and was sentenced to serve three (3) years in the Tennessee State Penitentiary.
On 19 June 1970, the unit commander recommended the applicant be discharged under Army Regulation 635-206, based on his civil conviction.
On 23 June 1970, the appropriate separation authority approved the discharge and directed an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.
On 7 August 1970, the applicant was discharged with a under conditions other than honorable discharge, under the above-cited regulation. His DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates he had 2 years, 8 months and 10 days of creditable service and 543 days of lost time.
On 17 December 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for upgrade.
Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at that time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 33 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members convicted by civil authorities would be considered for separation. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 635-200, currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14, establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absences without leave. Action will be take to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
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 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.
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.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 17 December 1985, the date the ADRB denied the request for upgrade. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 17 December 1988.
The application is dated 5 July 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 the 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 the application within the three-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_GJW___ _RJO____ _RVO__ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076417 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030213 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19700807 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-206 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Conviction by civil authorities |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013719
x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 2 December 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of the applicants case, determined his discharge was proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017994
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He departed Vietnam on 23 June 1969 and was transferred to Fort Bragg for assignment to the 82d Airborne Division. He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 18 December 1975 for an upgrade of his discharge contending that he deserved an honorable discharge for good time served.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709426C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. On 7 November 1967, the applicants commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for misconduct, conviction by a civil court with confinement in excess of 1 year. On 28 December 1967, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for civil conviction with an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709426
On 20 December 1967, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant receive an undesirable discharge. On 28 December 1967, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for civil conviction with an undesirable discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the ADRB are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board’s exhaustion requirement (AR 15-185, paragraph 8), effectively...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025369
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 7 October 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 due to conviction by civil authorities with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant's overall record of service has been considered.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509887C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable. Therefore, on 22 August l975, he was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-206 for a civil court conviction with a UD. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010569C070208
He states, that he was already worried about his family’s welfare, when his mother wrote to say that her lights and water was turned off. On 16 June 1972, the separation authority directed that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, by reason of misconduct (civil conviction), and directed that the applicant receive an undesirable discharge. On 4 October 1976, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009904
Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at that time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel due to misconduct (fraudulent entry, conviction by civil court, and absence without leave or desertion). On 19 January 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge. Records show he was 20 years of age at the time he was convicted by a civil court for his offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606803C070209
On 9 December 1971, the applicant was notified that the commander was recommending a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for fraudulent entry, and that the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged before the expiration term of his service. On 8 February 1972, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for fraudulent entry with a discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004041C070205
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 30 September 1971 with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for conviction by civil court. On 26 September 1972, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for a general discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.