Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001203C070206
Original file (20050001203C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            22 SEPTEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050001203


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Bernard Ingold                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael Flynn                 |     |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 discharge under other than honorable
conditions be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states that he went absent without leave (AWOL) because
of the death of his grandmother, that he did return to military duty after
60 days and that he was a model soldier when he returned and did a good job
for the Army.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents with his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 3 August 1979.  The application submitted in this case is dated
13 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 applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  He was born on 9 August 1953 and enlisted in Phoenix, Arizona, on 22
June 1974 for a period of 2 years.  He completed his training at Fort Ord,
California, and was transferred to Korea, where he served as a clerk typist
until he departed Korea for assignment to Fitzsimmons Army Medical Center
in Denver, Colorado, on 6 January 1975.  He was advanced to the pay grade
of E-4 on 1 November 1975.

4.  He reenlisted on 31 May 1977 for a period of 3 years and on 27 January
1979, he was transferred to Schweinfurt, Germany.  He reenlisted on
12 February 1979 for a period of 3 years.

5.  He departed Germany on emergency leave for 11 days on 11 March 1979
with a scheduled return date of 22 March 1979.  However, he did not return
and was AWOL until he was returned to military control at Nellis Air Force
base, Nevada, on 10 May 1979.  He was transferred to Fort Ord, California
where charges were preferred against him for the AWOL offense.

6.  The facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge
are not present in the available records.  However, his records do contain
a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) which shows that he
was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 3 August 1979,
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of
trial by court-martial.  He had served 4 years, 11 months and 23 days of
total active service and had 49 days of lost time due to AWOL.

7.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge
within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the regulation provides,
in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses
for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at
any time after charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge
for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A condition
of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must indicate
that they are submitting the request of their own free will, without
coercion from anyone and that they have been briefed and understand the
consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive.
 A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered
appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
the applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid
trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance
with applicable regulations.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore
were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence before a
trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good
of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a
felony conviction on his records.

4.  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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 3 August 1979; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 2 August 1981.  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 FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____JA__  ___BI ___  ___MF __  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.




            ____James Anderholm__________________
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050001203                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/09/22                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(UOTHC)                                 |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1979/08/03                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200/ch10 . . . . .                |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Gd of svc                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |689/a70.00                              |
|1.144.7000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001203C070206

    Original file (20050001203C070206.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    He reenlisted on 31 May 1977 for a period of 3 years and on 27 January 1979, he was transferred to Schweinfurt, Germany. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 3 August 1979; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006633C070205

    Original file (20060006633C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 23 November 1976; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007761C071029

    Original file (20060007761C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence shows the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States, on 8 January 1964. On 16 July 1965, the applicant and his unit were reassigned to Vietnam. The applicant, in a statement submitted on 16 July 1968, stated, in effect, he had returned from Vietnam on 15 December 1966, he had picked up his orders and he had been AWOL since that time.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085219C070212

    Original file (2003085219C070212.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. He stated that the applicant went AWOL because he was not getting along and did not like the training. The applicant has not presented and the records do not...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091653C070212

    Original file (2003091653C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge. The application submitted in this case is dated 3 May 2003. The applicant consulted with counsel on 15 June 1979, at which time the counsel again advised the applicant of his rights and the repercussions of requesting and/or receiving a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021796

    Original file (20090021796.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). However, on 31 January 1975 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 6 provided for the separation of enlisted Soldiers because of dependency or hardship.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067039C070402

    Original file (2002067039C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 July 1979, the applicant departed his unit at Fort Stewart in an AWOL status and remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Leonard Wood on 21 August 1979. On the same date, after consulting with counsel about his rights, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The Board noted the applicant's contentions; however, the Board found no evidence...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711370

    Original file (9711370.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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03094644C070212

    Original file (03094644C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 February 1976 he enlisted in the Wyoming Army National Guard for 4 years, 1 month, and 4 days. On that same date, he was informed that he was charged with 8 unexcused absence, and since he did not submit a request that he be excused from drill on 5 and 6 November 1977, he [the commanding officer] would request that the applicant be ordered to active duty. There is no evidence, nor has the applicant provided any, to indicate otherwise, nor is there any evidence to show that he was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070796C070402

    Original file (2002070796C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: