| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Christopher J. Prosser | Member | |
| Ms. Yalonda Maldonado | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge. The applicant states that he signed papers not fully understanding what he was signing, and was never told how or where he could go for help.
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 29 July 1968, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. He completed basic combat training at Fort Leonardwood, Missouri and advanced individual training at Fort Knox, Kentucky. He served in Vietnam from March 1969 to September 1970.
The applicant was promoted to pay grade E-2, E-3 and E-4 on 29 November 1968,
15 March 1969 and 28 September 1969, respectively.
On 22 February 1970, he accepted nonjudicial punishment, under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 7 February 1970 to 19 February 1970. His punishment was reduction to the pay grade of E-3.
On 1 June 1971, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 January 1971 to 12 April 1971. His sentence included reduction to pay grade E-2 and a forfeiture.
Evidence shows that on 8 July 1971, the applicant was reduced to the pay grade of E-1, for misconduct. No additional information is available on this reduction.
The facts and circumstances concerning the applicant’s discharge are not in the available records. However, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates he was separated on 8 September 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with an undersirable discharge. His DD Form 214 indicates he had 2 years, 8 months and 9 days of creditable service and
151 days of lost time.
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.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record.
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 8 September 1971, the date the applicant was discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 8 September 1974.
The application is dated 29 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 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
__WTM _ __CJP __ __YM___ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2002078192 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030130 |
| 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. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086101C070212
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. The applicant has not presented and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083943C070212
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 | CY1996 | 9608641C070209
On the same day, 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 (UD). 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. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607185C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded. On 15 July 1971, 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106221C070208
He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 20 November 1969. On 6 October 1970, the applicant was seen by a psychiatrist who stated that he appeared to have a character disorder of the part for which a discharge from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, would be a most appropriate solution. The Report of Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214) indicates that the applicant was discharged on 9 July 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 1997002268
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. A board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service because of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105372C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 17 August 1971, the applicant was notified that a board of officers would convene to determine whether he should be discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-212 prior to his expiration of service. On 4 January 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509654C070209
On 21 May 1970, while serving in Vietnam, he reenlisted, in pay grade E-3, for 3 years. On 12 January 1971, the applicants commander submitted a request recommending that the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers convened under Army Regulation 635-212 for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service. The applicants DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | AR20080006854
The applicant states, in effect, he was told he was going to be discharged with a medical discharge because of his condition. The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, on 1 November 1968, for 3 years. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710244
On 25 July 1972, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 March to 25 May 1972 and from 22 to 26 June 1972. On 13 November 1975, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with a bad conduct discharge pursuant to his court-martial conviction. 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.