| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ronald J. Weaver | Member | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgrade to general, under honorable conditions.
2. The applicant states that there was no injustice in his discharge but he is requesting this upgrade based on the past 30 years as a good citizen and he is sorry for his past mistakes.
3. The applicant provides no documentation.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an error, which occurred on 13 July 1973, the date of his discahrge. The application submitted in this case is dated 11 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 27 January 1972. While still in training he was absent without leave (AWOL) on three occasions for a total of 9 days and was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on three occasions for the AWOL offenses and absence from his place of duty. His punishments consisted of fines, extra duties, and restriction.
4. After completion of training as a aircraft armament subsystems repairman, he was assigned to Vietnam from 26 August through 27 December 1972. He had been promoted to pay grade E-3 effective 26 August 1972. While there he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for failure to report for guard duty. His punishment consisted of a fine.
5. The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he was AWOL on three separate occasions between 8 January and 26 April 1973 for a total of 93 days. The final AWOL was terminated by apprehension by civil authorities.
6. The applicant's DA Form 20 also shows that the applicant was in confinement from 27 April to 12 July 1973. While in confinement at the installation retraining brigade his unit commander recommended the applicant for separation for unfitness. On approximately 2 July 1973, a Report of Mental Status Evaluation was prepared. The report showed the applicant's behavior was normal; he was fully alert and oriented with a level mood. His thought process was clear and his thought content normal. His memory was good. It was determined that he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and to adhere to the right. He had no significant mental illness and was cleared for administrative separation.
7. The unit commander's recommendation noted that the applicant's conduct and efficiency had been unsatisfactory and he had been convicted by a special court-martial. While in the retraining brigade he had received 12 adverse observation reports. He had demonstrated a disregard for military authority and indicated no desire to return to military duty.
8. On 12 July 1973, after consultation with counsel, the applicant waived his rights to consideration of his case by a board of officers, to submit statements in his own behalf, and to be represented by counsel. The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed separation with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
9. Effective 13 July 1973, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. He had 11 months and 18 days creditable service and 179 days lost time.
10. 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. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
11. On 22 January 1980, the ADRB in a unanimous decision, voted to deny the applicant's request for a discharge upgrade noting that his UOTHC discharge was both proper and equitable.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service
2. The applicant's personal problems and good citizenship are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
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 that the applicant should have discovered the injustice now under consideration on 22 January 1980, the date of his denial by the ADRB. Thus, the applicant should have filed an application with the ABCMR within 3 years from 22 January 1980. However, the applicant did not do so and has not provided a compelling explanation justifying failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitations.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__jl____ ___rw___ __ao_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003090108 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20040122 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19730713 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 CH 13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005919
He paid his fines every time he went AWOL and always came back to his unit. He was young and had so many problems while in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008804C070206
On 30 November 1972, while serving in the pay grade of E-4, he reenlisted for a period of 3 years and assignment to Fort Meade, Maryland. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100363C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009843
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The DD Form 214 issued to the FSM on 4 April 1973, the date of his discharge, confirms he was separated UOTHC under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Records show the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on should have been discovered on 4 April 1973, the date of the FSM's discharge, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060324C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006095
On an unknown date, while at the U. S. Army Retraining Brigade, Fort Riley, KS, action was initiated to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. On 17 July 1981, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, frequent involvement in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077240C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 2 May 1973, the commander at the USARB requested that the applicant be processed for separation under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200. The USARB was established in 1968 as the U.S. Army Correctional Training Facility (CTF).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090169C070212
The applicant also states that the discharge authority was asked to waive rehabilitation action on the basis of his commander's recommendation that he had served in four units. 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 an unsworn statement, presented by the applicant during his court-martial, the applicant indicated that he had been a corporal when he was first punished under Article 15 of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091336C070212
The applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. 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...
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.