| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Gale J. Thomas | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states that he feels he should be given clemency because of his post service conduct.
3. The applicant indicates that he provides letters of recommendation from his church, civic groups and volunteer organizations, however, there were no letters of support included with his application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an error which occurred on
4 December 1974. The application submitted in this case is dated 7 March 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 November 1972, for a period of 3 years. He completed basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and advanced individual training at Fort Lee, Virginia. He served in Germany from May 1973 to December 1973.
4. Between August 1973 and September 1974 the applicant received six nonjudicidual punishments, under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for disobeying a lawful order, being absent from his place of duty, and for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishments included forfeitures, extra duty, and restriction.
5. Between January 1974 and March 1974, he received nine formal counseling sessions for being absent from his place of duty, disrespectful language, shirking his duties, and his behavior.
6. On 3 June 1974, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 9 April to 12 April 1974. His sentence included reduction, forfeiture, extra duty and restriction.
7. On 18 June 1974, a Medical Evaluation and a Mental Status Evaluation cleared the applicant for separation.
8. A 12 August 1974 Psychiatric Evaluation diagnosed the applicant with an inadequate personality, manifested by poor impulse control, an inability to cope with authority, low frustration tolerance, acting out, and poor self-image. The evaluation recommended that the applicant’s profile indicated a marked unsuitability for service, and indicated that administrative separation was a appropriate.
9. On 23 October 1974, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph
13-12, for unfitness, because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.
10. On 25 October 1974, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged he had been advised of the basis for his commander’s intent to discharge him. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, representation by counsel, and personal appearance before a board of officers, and he also declined to submit statements in his own behalf. He further acknowledged that he understood the ramification of receiving an undesirable discharge, and that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.
11. On 29 October 1974, the battalion commander recommended the applicant’s elimination from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, paragraph 13-5, for unfitness.
12. On 22 November 1974, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s elimination for the service for unfitness, and directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
13. On 4 December 1974, the applicant was separated under the provisions of the above cited regulation. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation for Active Duty) indicates he had 1 year, 11 months and 17 days of active service, and
18 days of lost time.
14. On 7 May 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.
15. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
2. The applicant’s good post-service conduct is not supported by any evidence and would not warrant the relief requested.
3. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
4. Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 7 May 1982; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 6 May 1985. 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
__FNE __ __JPI __ __KAH __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003089586 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20040205 |
| 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 | CY2010 | 20100018057
While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicants failure to timely file. On 2 April 1982, after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005044
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The applicant received non-judicial punishment under the provision of Article 15, UCMJ, on two occasions, in addition to a special court-martial conviction, as well as a previous separation action that was suspended.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005327
On 6 December 1974, the separation authority waived the requirement for a rehabilitative transfer and approved the applicant's discharge for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. _______ _ _XXX______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021599
On 13 June 1975, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 and ordered the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. He was also between 19 and 21 years of age at the time of his misconduct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013839,
There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The discharge proceedings appear to have been conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016751
The applicant's commander stated the applicant had not waived his right to appear before a board of officers. The applicant contends he was not AWOL when his commander said he was and his undesirable discharge should be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. The evidence of record shows the applicant demonstrated that he could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel as evidenced by the NJP he received for being AWOL and the special court-martial he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012580
The applicant requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. His DD Form 214 issued at the time of his discharge shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The discharge proceedings appear to have been conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013865C071029
On 17 July 1974, the applicant's unit commander recommended that the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of AR 635-200, for the purpose of determining whether he should be discharged before the expiration of his term of service. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. An individual separated by reason of unfitness will be furnished an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007983
The applicant states that he was found unfit for continued service by reason of misconduct, specifically his failure to follow orders and drug dependency. On 28 March 1975, the separation authority waived the counseling and rehabilitative requirements but ordered a board of officer convened to determine whether the applicant should be separated for unfitness. It states that a service member may be separated when it is determined under the guidance in that the member is unqualified for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016029C070206
On the date of his discharge, the applicant had completed 2 years and 6 months total active military service, with 125 days lost due to absence without leave and confinement. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in this case when his case was last reviewed by the ADRB on 16 March 1977.