| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Patrick H. McGann | Member | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states that he was young and stupid when he was discharged for slashing the tires of several vehicles of fellow soldiers after they made vile comments about a female officer he admired. He was caught and apologized with appropriate compensation for the damage. His discharge has resulted in denied jobs and benefits and he is now suffering from clinical depression.
3. The applicant provides no additional documentation.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of injustice, which occurred on 20 February 1986. The application submitted in this case is dated 1 April 2003.
2. 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 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 commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. In complying with this decision, the ABCMR 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.
3. The applicant's records show that he enlisted and entered active duty on 11 August 1983. He was trained as a cook and assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia. He was promoted to pay grade E-3 effective 11 August 1984.
4. The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 17 October to 12 November 1985. On 6 December 1985 charges were preferred for the AWOL offense and for cutting with a knife automobile tires of ten fellow soldiers.
5. After consulting with counsel the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request he acknowledged guilt to the offenses that might result in a punitive discharge. He also acknowledged that he understood the result of a UOTHC discharge that he might receive and that he might be deprived of many veterans' benefits.
6. On 13 February 1986 a Report of Mental Status Evaluation was prepared which noted that the applicant's behavior was passive, he was fully alert and oriented, and his mood was unremarkable. Additionally, his thought process was clear, his thought content was normal, and his memory was good. The resulting impression of the mental status evaluation was that the applicant was within normal limits.
7. The separation authority approved the request for separation and directed issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions with reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. Effective 20 February 1986, the applicant was discharged in the pay grade of E-1 under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He had 2 years, 5 months, and 13 days creditable service and 27 days lost time due to AWOL.
8. On 3 November 1999, the ADRB determined that the applicant's separation was proper and equitable and voted unanimously to deny his request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge.
9. 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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. 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 the offenses he was charged with.
2. The applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. Current standards do not change the separations authority's ability to issue a discharge under other than honorable conditions for periods of AWOL and destruction of private property.
3. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
4. Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 3 November 1999; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 2 November 2002. However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to file in this case.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__lm___ ___pm___ ___ra__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003088720 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20040113 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19860220 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, CH 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088720C070403
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 commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. On 3 November 1999, the ADRB determined that the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006654C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. Since the applicant’s record of service included two nonjudicial punishments and 76 days of lost time, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002609C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 7 February 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001081C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge characterized as UOTHC should be upgraded to honorable or general. On 23 August 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002147C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was discharged on 29 January 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with an UOTHC discharge. On 8 January 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), by unanimous vote, denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge to general under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100467C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Raymond J. Wagner ______________________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX |CASE ID |AR2004100467 | |SUFFIX | | |RECON | | |DATE BOARDED |20040829 | |TYPE OF DISCHARGE |UOTHC | |DATE OF DISCHARGE |19860506 | |DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |AR 635-200, Chap 10 | |DISCHARGE REASON |A70.00 | |BOARD DECISION |(DENY) | |REVIEW AUTHORITY | | |ISSUES 1.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012841
There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within its 15-year statute of limitations for an upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3-7b, also provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. _____John T. Meixell____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060012841 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 2007/04/17 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF DISCHARGE 19870206 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR635-200,Chapter10, Good...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007737
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicants service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007129
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. The evidence of record confirms that in his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged his understanding that there were no provisions for an automatic review or upgrade of his discharge and that he would have to apply for an upgrade and/or change to the reason for his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005457C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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. Since the applicant’s record of service included two nonjudicial punishments and 75 days of lost time, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.