Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100485C070208
Original file (2004100485C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           03 AUGUST 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004100485


      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             |
|     |Ms. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Gail Wire                     |     |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 records be corrected by upgrading his
discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he is disabled, that he was struck by a car
in 1985 which left him paralyzed.  He has been unable to work and support
himself, and gets by on his social security disability.  He has several
other serious health problems.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge form Active Duty) in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 21 November 1979.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 21 October 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 7 December 1976, for a
period of 3 years.

4.  Between April 1978 and September 1979, the applicant received seven
nonjuducial punishments, under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code
of Military Justice for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His
punishments included reductions, restriction, extra duty, and forfeitures
of pay.

5.  On 18 October 1979, the applicant was notified by his commander that he
was recommending he be eliminated from the service under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.
6.  On 25 October 1979, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-
martial of failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 10 September
1979.  His sentenced was reduction to Private E-1.

7.  The applicant acknowledged that he had been advised by counsel of the
basis for his commander’s intent to separate him for misconduct.   He
further acknowledged that he understood that if he received an under other
than honorable conditions discharge he may encounter substantial prejudice
in civilian life, and may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a
Veteran under both Federal and State laws.

8.  On 15 November 1979, the appropriate separation authority approved the
applicant’s discharge, and directed the issuance of an under other than
honorable conditions discharge.

9.  On 21 November 1979, the applicant was discharged under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  His DD Form 214
(Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty) indicates he had 2
years,
8 months, and 19 days of active service, and 88 days of lost time.

10.  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.  Specific
categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct,
commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities,
desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a
member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is
impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

11.  On 3 May 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the
applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  It is unfortunate that the applicant is now disabled, however, there is
no evidence to justify granting the relief requested.
4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, 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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 3 May 1983, therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on            2 May 1986.  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 timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___FE  __  ___JM __  ___GW__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would 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.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




            _____Fred Eichorn_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004100485                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040803                                |
|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.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023274

    Original file (20110023274.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. d. On 9 April 1984, the separation authority directed separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The evidence of record shows that while assigned to a Medical Holding Company for medical processing he received NJP for willfully disobeying a lawful order.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007626C070208

    Original file (20040007626C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged because of misconduct and that he receive an UOTHC discharge. On 31 January 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after carefully considering the applicant’s case, concluded that his discharge was proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his request to upgrade his discharge. An UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate for members separated under these provisions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057671C070420

    Original file (2001057671C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant was discharged on 31...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000384

    Original file (20070000384.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 8 May 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. On 23 May 1979, the applicant was discharged accordingly. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106580C070208

    Original file (2004106580C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 April 1980, the separation authority directed the applicant’s separation under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 with an UOTHC discharge. On 27 May 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after carefully considering the applicant’s case, determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The character references provided by the applicant were also considered, but his post service conduct alone is not...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089956C070403

    Original file (2003089956C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his 30 April 1983 separation for permanent physical disability (10%) with entitlement to severance pay be changed to retirement at a rate of 40% disability. The PEB recommended that he be placed on the TDRL with a disability rating of 80%. The findings and recommendations of the PEB were approved and on 30 April 1983, the applicant was separated by reason of physical disability at a rate of 10%.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003876C070205

    Original file (20060003876C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states, in effect, that he was discharged based on misconduct; however, reviewing his medical records, he should have been medically discharged. Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 6 January 1981, shows the applicant underwent a medical examination for the purpose of separation. Based on the facts above, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that shows he was medically unqualified to perform his military duties or that his medical condition was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001180

    Original file (20070001180.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's military service records contain a SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 25 February 1980, prepared upon medical examination of the applicant for the purpose of his separation from active duty under the provisions of Chapter 9. The evidence of record shows the applicant’s seizure disorder is documented in his military service records. The evidence of record shows that the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the U.S....

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050007112C070206

    Original file (20050007112C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 January 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050007112 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. Karmin S. Jenkins | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. However, there is no evidence of the applicant re-injuring his shoulder after his MVA.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004390

    Original file (20090004390.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), ending 3 October 1983, to delete military occupational specialty (MOS) 63Y1O (Track Vehicle Mechanic); to show that he had qualified as an expert with the M-16 rifle; to show his rank as specialist four, pay grade E-4; and to show that he suffered from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The applicant contends that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to delete MOS 63Y1O; to show...