Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090855C070212
Original file (2003090855C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied




RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 18 NOVEMBER 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003090855


         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. Kenneth H. Aucock Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. John N. Slone Chairperson
Mr. Mark D. Manning Member
Ms. Barbara J. Ellis 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 that his discharge under conditions other than honorable be upgraded to honorable.

2. The applicant states that his refusal to obey orders was because his wife was cheating on him with three of his co-workers. He was not able to transfer; however, a counselor recommended that he be transferred from Fort Riley. His company commander discarded the recommendation and refused his right to take advantage of the colonel's open door policy. He had no other options. He always did his job to the best of his ability. Two of his wife's new boy friends were his best friends. He is sorry for his mental breakdown during his divorce proceedings.

3. The applicant provided no evidence to support his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant is requesting correction of an injustice which occurred on 6 November 1985. The application submitted in this case is dated 28 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. 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. The applicant enlisted in the Army for four years on 24 May 1984, completed training, and in September 1984 was assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas as a cannon crewman. He was advanced to the rank of private first class on 1 March 1985.

4. A 25 July 1985 counseling statement indicates that the applicant disobeyed an order to get up (get out of bed).

5. On 12 August 1985 a noncommissioned officer (NCO), in a counseling statement, indicated that he ordered the applicant to get his bags packed to go to the field, and the applicant refused. The NCO stated that he refused a like order from the battery commander.

6. On 16 August 1985 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for wrongfully using marijuana, and for disobeying a lawful order.

7. The applicant was AWOL (absent without leave) from 19 August 1985 until his return to military control on 19 September 1985. On 19 September 1985 he was arraigned, tried, and convicted for being AWOL and sentenced to 14 days confinement. On 20 September 1985 the convening authority approved the sentence and ordered that it be executed.

8. A 1 October 1985 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 1 1. In the report of medical history that he furnished for the examination, the applicant stated that he had no real health problems lately and was not using any medications.

9. A 1 October 1985 report of mental status evaluation shows that the applicant was mentally responsible, had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings, and met the standards for retention in the Army.

10. On 16 October 1985 the applicant's commanding officer notified the applicant that he was recommending that he be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. The applicant consulted with counsel, and stated that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplate action to separate him for misconduct, its effects, of the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. He waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, and declined to submit statements in his own behalf. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge that he might receive.

11. The applicant's battery commander recommended that the applicant be separated for misconduct, stating that the applicant had reacted negatively to past efforts such as counseling and punishment and was resisting any efforts in that direction. The applicant's battalion commander recommended approval, stating that the applicant was a substandard Soldier, who could not be relied upon. He stated that his behavior detracted leaders from taking care of good Soldiers and disrupted valuable training time.

12. On 31 October 1985 the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 6 November 1985.



13. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Paragraph 14-12c states that soldiers are subject to separation for commission of a serious military or civil offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the MCM. An absentee returned to military control from a status of absent without leave or desertion may be separated for commission of a serious offense.
An under other than honorable conditions certificate is normally appropriate for a member discharged for misconduct.

14. 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service. The applicant's contention that his personal problems caused his misconduct, and his implication that he was unfairly treated is not borne out by any evidence submitted.

2. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.

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 that requirement.

4. Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 6 November 1985; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 6 November 1988. 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

__JNS __ __MDM__ __BJE __ 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.




                  ____ John N. Slone______
                  CHAIRPERSON





INDEX

CASE ID AR2003090855
SUFFIX
RECON YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED 20031118
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 | CY2003 | 2003086628C070212

    Original file (2003086628C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 8 May 1987, 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 – drug abuse. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. On 9 March 1994, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150006896

    Original file (20150006896.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    d. Counsel requests that the Board upgrade his discharge based on the fact that the misconduct which led to his UOTHC discharge was directly and causally related to his PTSD - a condition caused by his service which was not diagnosed at the time of discharge. This traumatic event led to even more alcohol/drug abuse and misconduct. The psychiatrist stated the applicant's symptoms of PTSD existed at the time of his discharge and mitigate his misconduct.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000730

    Original file (20150000730.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 1 April 1986, the applicant’s immediate commander notified the applicant that he was initiating separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009807

    Original file (20130009807.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5a(1), with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Paragraph 13-5a(1), in effect at the time, provided that individuals would be discharged by reason of misconduct when their records were characterized by frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010620

    Original file (20120010620.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Orders 228-5, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Correctional Activity, Fort Riley, KS, dated 25 November 1985, discharged him from the Army in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), effective 3 December 1985. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, as a result of court-martial with a bad conduct discharge. ABCMR...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002316C070206

    Original file (20050002316C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 9 April 1971 the applicant was separated with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Presidential Proclamation 4313, issued on 16 September 1974, provided for the issuance of a clemency discharge to certain former Soldiers who voluntarily entered into and completed an alternate restitution program specifically designed for...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020989

    Original file (20120020989.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His Army Military Human Resource Record (formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF)) is void of documentation showing a medical board reviewed his record for the purpose of determining his sanity or that he appeared before such a board. General Court-Martial Order Number 697, issued by the USACA, Fort Riley, dated 30 September 1986, states that Article 71(c) having been complied with, the bad conduct discharge will be executed. His conviction and sentence by general...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004344

    Original file (20090004344.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual’s entire record. The evidence of record shows the applicant’s separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability was administratively correct, all requirements of law and regulations were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and the applicant was properly...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014182

    Original file (20060014182.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She had completed 3 years, 4 months and 4 days of creditable active duty and had 147 days of lost time due to AWOL. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The police records submitted by the applicant show that she was involved in unlawful incidents prior to, during, and after her period of military service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006445C070208

    Original file (20040006445C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant submitted a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 9 October 1985, in which he requested leave approval to attend classes at General Motors Training Center in Kansas to get up to date information in order to pass certification test in the month of December 1986. On 18 February 1986, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b (Patterns of Misconduct) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active...