RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 30 August 2005
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050000998
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. Wanda L. Waller
Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Mr. Paul Smith
Chairperson
Ms. Yolanda Maldonado
Member
Mr. Leonard Hassell
Member
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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states, in effect, the recruiter should have never passed him for enlistment because he could not spell. He contends he was too embarrassed to let anyone know so he went absent without leave (AWOL).
3. The applicant provides no evidence in support of his application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which occurred on 20 March 1975. The application submitted in this case is dated 8 January 2005.
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 applicants failure to timely file.
3. The applicant enlisted on 14 May 1974 for a period of 2 years.
4. The applicants DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he was AWOL from 14 November 1974 to 15 November 1974 (2 days) and from
25 November 1974 to 16 January 1975 (63 days).
5. The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants discharge are not contained in the available records. However, the applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows that he was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 20 March 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had served 8 months and 2 days of creditable active service with 65 days of lost time due to AWOL.
6. 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.
7. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge might at any time after the charges had been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
8. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the members service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
9. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldiers separation specifically allows such characterization.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicants separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Without having the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate with his overall record of service. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
2. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice now under consideration on 20 March 1975; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 19 March 1978. 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 FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
PS_____ YM_____ LH______ 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.
___Paul Smith_________
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR20050000998
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED
20050830
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19750320
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200 Chapter 10
DISCHARGE REASON
For the good of the service
BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.
144.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010749
The evidence shows the applicant requested discharge in lieu of facing a court-martial. The characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and the evidence shows that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. _______ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060010749 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 2007/02/21 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UD DATE OF DISCHARGE 19750428 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR635-200,Chapter 10 DISCHARGE REASON In Lieu of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001014
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 29 August 1975, the applicant was discharged from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge. The applicant's record of service shows he received a summary court-martial and one Article 15 for being AWOL for a total of 73 days.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018012
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 April 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070018012 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. The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge. Evidence of record shows that he understood he could be discharged with an undesirable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000879C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. There is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his allegation or to show that he requested a hardship discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012377
On 13 May 1975, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 5 June 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. ___Hubert Fry____________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060012377 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070522 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UD DATE OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007468
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 July 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100007468 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. There is no indication he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-years statute of limitation. However, his record contains a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was discharged on 30 September 1975 under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 in lieu of a court-martial with an under other...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008152
The applicant requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: The Disabled American Veterans (DAV), as counsel for the applicant, states the following: * Race played a factor in the military in 1975 * The applicants mother was sick and could not take care of herself or provide for herself * The applicants conduct during his subsequent discharge was exemplary * The applicant is now a changed man...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001851
The applicant, the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests upgrade of her late husband's undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. The FSM's court-martial charge sheet is not available; however, on 19 September 1975, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017460
However, his record contains a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) that shows on 6 August 1975 he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial, with issuance of a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate). On 5 February 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request to upgrade his undesirable discharge. At the time, an undesirable discharge was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004551
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Accordingly, on 21 April 1975 the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), chapter 10. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.