| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Robert J. McGowan | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Robert J. Osborn, II | Member | |
| Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Undesirable Discharge (UD) be upgraded to an Honorable Discharge (HD). He contends that he had no trouble -- nonjudicial punishments or courts-martial -- until the very end of his period of service. He provides five character references.
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 are incomplete. The available records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years on 10 July 1967 for training in Army Career group 62 - Engineer heavy Equipment Operation and Maintenance. Upon completion of all required military training, he was awarded MOS (military occupational specialty) 62F, Crane Shovel Operator, and transferred to Germany.
The applicant served in Company E, 12th Engineer Battalion, 8th Infantry Division from on/about December 1967 to March 1968. He was honorably separated on 25 March 1968 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting for 3 years on 26 March 1968 and an assignment in Vietnam.
There is very little information in the applicant's records concerning his second period of RA service. Although he clearly reenlisted for duty in Vietnam, there is no indication that he ever actually served in Vietnam. The record shows that he was absent without leave (AWOL) from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, during the period 5 September - 17 December 1969. On 18 December 1969, he was present for duty at Fort Campbell, but he again went AWOL on 5 January 1970 and was subsequently dropped from the rolls of the Army as a deserter.
The applicant remained absent through 16 July 1970. He was apprehended and returned to military control at Fort McPherson, Georgia, where, on 20 July 1970, he was placed in the Post Stockade and court-martial charges were preferred against him. Although the applicant's discharge packet is no longer a part of his record, he apparently requested an administrative discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
The applicant was released from confinement on 17 August 1970. As stated, his record is void of facts and circumstances concerning the actual events that led to his discharge from the Army. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) which was authenticated by the applicant. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. In connection with such a discharge, the applicant would have been charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. Procedurally, he would have been required to consult with defense counsel, and to voluntarily, and in writing, request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he would have admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ.
On 20 October 1970, the applicant was separated with a UD. He had 1 year and 8 months of creditable service for the period under review and 8 months and 16 days of creditable service on his initial enlistment. He also had 325 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. His DD Form 214 does not reflect any foreign service for the period under review, nor does it reflect and awards and decorations typical of service in Vietnam.
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.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 20 October 1970, the date of discharge. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 20 October 1973.
The application is dated 5 December 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 3-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__rvo___ __rjo___ __ecp___ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2003083935 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031009 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19701020 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009518C070208
There is no indication the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade with that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 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 | CY2004 | 20040007688C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge (GD), issued under the provisions of the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 31 May 1977 be corrected to show he was separated due to a physical disability. On 19 February 1970, the applicant was determined to be mentally responsible for the offenses for which he was charged. At the time of the applicant's separation, a UD was appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000095C070206
The applicant requests that the undesirable discharge (UD) that he received from the Regular Army (RA) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 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. At the time of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010316
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general or an honorable discharge. On 12 September 1968, while attending advanced individual training, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for going absent without leave (AWOL) on 18 August 1968 and remaining AWOL until his return on 2 September 1968. In an undated disposition form, the applicant, subsequent to receiving legal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005542
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He was discharged under other than honorable conditions for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial on 9 August 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations), chapter 10, and issued a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate). ___________x____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002710C070206
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a honorable or a general discharge (GD). The applicant states that upon his return from Vietnam, he was unable to adjust to state-side duty. There is no evidence in the applicant's records, and the applicant has provided none, to show that he applied for an upgrade of his discharge to the ADRB within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606481C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 14 November 1973, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 12 July 1970 to 11 November 1973. On 7 February 1974, 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059000C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 635-40 provides that a member who is charged with an offense for which he could be dismissed or given a punitive discharge may not be referred for, or continue, disability processing. DETERMINATION : The subject application was not submitted within the time required.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006647C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. At the time of the applicant's separation, a UD was appropriate. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) requesting a change in discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088382C070403
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE : On 10 March 1972, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under that board's 15-year statute of limitations.