Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085219C070212
Original file (2003085219C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 05 AUGUST 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003085219


         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Luther L. Santiful Chairperson
Mr. Curtis L. Greenway Member
Mr. Ronald J. Weaver Member


         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. 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 Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)


APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be changed to honorable or general.

The applicant states that he was experiencing severe family problems in 1975. He was counseled in regard to a hardship discharge; however, because of his immaturity, he felt that he could not wait the 6-8 months processing time that the discharge would entail. Although the charges against him of AWOL were serious, the Army acknowledged the extenuating circumstances as indicated by the counseling regarding a hardship discharge. Despite losing 309 days, the time he did serve was 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.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 26 April 1974, completed basic training, and in June 1974 was assigned to Fort Huachuca, Arizona, for advanced training.

He was AWOL from 22 August 1974 to 18 November 1974. On 10 December 1974 the applicant was arraigned, tried, and pled guilty to AWOL before a special court-martial which convened at Fort Ord, California. He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 75 days. The convening authority approved the sentence. He was confined at the Personnel Control Facility at Fort Ord.

He was AWOL again from 28 March 1975 to 26 July 1975.

A 6 August 1975 report of medical examination shows that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 2 1. The applicant stated that he was in good health.

A 19 August 1975 report of mental status evaluation indicates that the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, and that he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. He met the medical standards for retention in the Army.

On 19 August 1975 the applicant consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He stated that he was guilty of the charge against him, which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He stated that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation for he had no desire to perform further military duty. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive.

In a separate statement, he stated that he had received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, on two occasions, and had one conviction by a court-martial. He stated that he could not stand the Army – that he hated it. He came in the Army because of personal problems at home. If he returned to duty he would go AWOL again. He could not take care of problems at home and stay in the Army. He stated that he understood that nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive, and would accept it.

The applicant's commanding officer recommended approval of his request, and recommended that he receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He stated that the applicant went AWOL because he was not getting along and did not like the training. He went home to help his family with their problems. He was counseled regarding a hardship discharge and a compassionate reassignment, but the applicant stated that he did not have sufficient grounds to apply for either one.

On 20 September 1975 the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. That officer indicated that the applicant had been counseled regarding a hardship discharge or compassionate reassignment; however, the applicant was adamant in his desire for a discharge for the good of the service. The applicant was discharged on 2 October 1975.

On 25 January 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board, in an unanimous opinion, denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge.

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.

There is no evidence, nor has the applicant provided any, to indicate that his discharge was in error or unjust and as such there is no basis to correct his record to upgrade his discharge as he has requested.

DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 25 January 1979, the date the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request to upgrade his discharge. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 25 January 1982.

The application is dated 8 January 2003 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

__LLS __ __CLG _ __RJW __ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION



Carl W. S. Chun
Director, Army Board for Correction
         of Military Records



INDEX

CASE ID AR2003085219
SUFFIX
RECON YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED 20030805
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.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070400C070402

    Original file (2002070400C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. Both requests were denied.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606810C070209

    Original file (9606810C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He further stated that he believed a discharge would be best for himself, his family and the Army On 26 September 1975 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant has provided no evidence and the records contain none that support his request to upgrade his discharge. Finally, he had the option of resubmitting another compassionate reassignment request, which he chose to disregard,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005594

    Original file (20090005594.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 11 February 1970, the applicant's mother wrote to the President of the United States concerning her son. On 21 June 1974, the applicant was given an undesirable discharge under Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, by reason of discharge for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018612

    Original file (20070018612.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: M Chairperson M Member M Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his Undesirable Discharge (UD) be upgraded.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000977

    Original file (20090000977.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 May 1975, the applicant requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service). The documents show the applicant stated, "I went AWOL because of marital problems I had after I joined the service. The evidence of record also shows that the applicant was 19 years of age when he submitted his request for discharge for the good of the service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066294C070403

    Original file (2002066294C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant requested a hardship discharge. On 20 October 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable or general.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075308C070403

    Original file (2002075308C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 April 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: There is no evidence to show that he made his command or any other agency aware of any personal problems or that he attempted to resolve his problems in an administratively acceptable manner (e.g., a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080638C070215

    Original file (2002080638C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009020

    Original file (20140009020.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests upgrade of his discharge to honorable and correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty). On 22 July 1976, the applicant appeared in person before the ADRB and testified under oath that – * he enlisted to better his education and or training to get some kind of training that he couldn't otherwise get or afford * he first started having problems in the service when he couldn't get an allotment for his wife * the entire time he was in Germany it...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000530

    Original file (20110000530.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 April 1975, approximately a year after his discharge, he applied for a waiver to again enlist in the RA and the EEA denied his request contending that he had two disqualifications, one being a medical defect and the other that he had been discharged for hardship/dependency. His medical records for this enlistment are not available for review with this case. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to show he was unfit for separation or that he could not perform the duties of his rank...