Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089432C070403
Original file (2003089432C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied




RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 3 February 2004
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003089432


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

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Mr. Paul Wright Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler Chairperson
Mr. Curtis L. Greenway Member
Ms. Regan K. Smith Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge be upgraded to General Under Honorable Conditions.

2. The applicant states, in effect, that his medical problem (bilateral avascular necrosis of the hips) initially began in the service with physical training (PT) over a period 6 years. It continued to get worse as time went on. He is unable to work 80% of the time because of his condition. He indicates a hip replacement is inevitable.

3. The applicant provides medical documents from Johns Hopkins Medicine and Johns Hopkins University Arthritis Surgery Division, both dated 20 June 2001.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant is requesting correction of an error or injustice which occurred on 2 April 1981. The application submitted in this case is dated 3 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. This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3. After successfully completing an initial enlistment during which he received a Good Conduct Medal and several letters of appreciation and commendation, the applicant reenlisted on 23 April 1979 for a period of 6 years for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C10, Motor Transport Operator.

4. The applicant successfully completed his MOS training and was subsequently assigned to the 126th Transportation Company, Fort Bragg, North Carolina on 5 November 1979.

5. The applicant's records show that he was absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit for 2 days from 8-9 July 1980. There is no indication that he was punished for this offense. The record also shows that he departed his unit in an AWOL status on 8 August 1980 and returned to military control at the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Dix, New Jersey on 17 February 1981.


6. On 20 February 1981, the applicant received a mental status evaluation. Comments indicate he was absent without leave (AWOL) for 6 months and he did not like the Army. On 2 March 1981, he stated in an interview with the Personnel Control Facility staff that he went AWOL because of the lack of proficiency at his unit at Fort Bragg. He had personal problems and no one wanted to listen to him. Additionally, he had begun drinking heavily and requested separation from the Army, but he was told he was too good a Soldier to be released. So he figured the only way he could get out was to mess up. He further indicated he turned himself in to get it over with so he could go to work. The statement indicates that he had no desire to continue on active duty and wanted out of the Army. There is no evidence he received a separation physical in the available records.

7. On 11 March 1981, the applicant was charged with AWOL for the period 8 August 1980 through 17 February 1981.

8. On an unknown date, the applicant requested separation under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He indicated he had consulted with counsel and further declined to submit a statement his own behalf. His commander and intermediate commander both recommended approval with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge certificate.

9. On 18 March 1981, the General Court-Martial Convening Authority approved the applicant's request and directed separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

10. On 2 April 1981, the applicant was separated with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He had 1 year, 4 months, and 28 days of active Federal creditable service for the enlistment period under review. He had 196 days of lost time.

11. AR 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.


12. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1. The applicant's available records do not show that he had a medical problem with his hips. His medical records make no mention of any such condition, treatment thereof, or show any physical profile. Additionally, there is not a copy of any separation physical showing any medical condition.

2. The applicant's interview statement at the Personnel Control Facility makes no mention of any medical problems as being the reason for his AWOL. He cites personal reasons and a dislike of the military as justification for his AWOL.

3. If the applicant had a medical problem, he could have been processed through medical channels for a possible medical separation. There is no evidence he availed himself of this remedy for a separation in lieu of going AWOL.

4. The fact that the applicant now has a serious medical problem at this late date is not a basis for upgrading his discharge. While the Board has sympathy for the applicant's medical condition, it does not upgrade discharges solely for the basis of receiving medical benefits. There is no error or injustice in the characterization of his discharge.

5. Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 2 April 1981; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 1 April 1984. 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

__sac___ __clg___ __rks___ DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:


The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.



                           Samuel A. Crumpler
                  ______________________
                  CHAIRPERSON





INDEX

CASE ID AR2003089432
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 20040203
TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC
DATE OF DISCHARGE 19810402
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200, Chap 10
DISCHARGE REASON A71.00
BOARD DECISION (DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 144.7100
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076255C070215

    Original file (2002076255C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008853

    Original file (20130008853.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 30 January 1981, after consulting with counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. a. On 4 November 1982, after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that he had been...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002324

    Original file (20120002324.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge or a medical discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally issued to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. There is no evidence showing what medications he was administered while hospitalized.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050018298C070206

    Original file (20050018298C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 July 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050018298 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. His punishment consisted of 14 days extra duty, 14 days restriction, a forfeiture of $50.00 pay for one month, and reduction to private E-2 (suspended until 8 June 1981). However, the evidence of record shows that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013693

    Original file (20060013693.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 April 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060013693 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. ____ Samuel Crumpler___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060013693 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 3 APRIL 2007 TYPE...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020458

    Original file (20110020458.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states: a. On 18 June 1981, the applicant was discharged accordingly. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068418C070402

    Original file (2002068418C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 2 September 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge had been proper and equitable and it denied his request for an upgrade. A discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011590

    Original file (20080011590.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 June 1983, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When the applicant requested discharge, he indicated that he further understood that there was no automatic upgrading of a less than honorable...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015526

    Original file (20110015526.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate. However, his record contains a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 2 July 1981 under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 in lieu of trial by a court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070888C070402

    Original file (2002070888C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 29 April 1981, the applicant’s unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for separation with a UOTHC discharge. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002070888SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20020926TYPE OF DISCHARGE(UOTHC)DATE OF DISCHARGE19810515DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, Ch 10DISCHARGE REASONA01.33BOARD...