Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008488C070205
Original file (20060008488C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        11 January 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060008488


      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. Bernard Ingold                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald Gant                   |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Edward Montgomery             |     |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 to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states that at the time of his discharge he was under a
great deal of stress.  He contends that he was a 21 year old E-4 serving in
Alaska and that he was a Soldier in good standing.  He admits that he made
a bad judgment call when he got involved in the situation of purchasing
stolen property and that he paid for that decision.  He states that he was
threatened with the prospect of going to prison so he made the decision to
volunteer for a Chapter 13 (sic) discharge. He also states that he served
31 months and was never awarded any benefits for that service.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 22 August 1978.  The application submitted in this case is
undated; however, the application was received in this office on 6 June
2006.

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 limitations 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 on 9 January 1976 for a period of 3 years.  He
successfully completed basic combat training and on-the-job training in
military occupational specialty 74B (card and tape writer).

4.  On 5 May 1976, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant
for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 April 1976 to 29 April 1976.
His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra
duty.

5.  On 9 June 1976, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for failure to repair.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture
of pay and extra duty.

6.  The applicant attained the rank of specialist four (pay grade E-4) on
7 September 1977.

7.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s 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
under other than honorable conditions on 22 August 1978 under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the
service, in lieu of court-martial.  He had served 2 years and 7 months of
creditable active service with 14 days lost time due to AWOL.  It is noted
that the applicant’s DD Form 214 erroneously shows he enlisted on 8 January
1976.

8.  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.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that 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,
submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial
by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges
have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.
Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under
other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, 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 Soldier’s separation specifically allows such
characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
the applicant’s 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 22 August 1978; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any error expired on 21
August 1981.  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

BI______  _RG____  _EM_____  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.




                                  __Bernard Ingold__________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060008488                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070111                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19780822                                |
|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.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007165C080213

    Original file (20070007165C080213.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 October 1979, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Chapter 10 of that 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 the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006416C071029

    Original file (20070006416C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) or honorable discharge (HD). The evidence of record confirms the separation authority directed the applicant receive a GD and the DD Form 214 shows he was appropriately issued a GD Certificate. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100521C070208

    Original file (2004100521C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 2 October 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. The applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment and 276 days of lost time.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057247C070420

    Original file (2001057247C070420.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. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103001C070208

    Original file (2004103001C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Evidence shows that the board of officers unanimously...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010900C070208

    Original file (20040010900C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    It was that examination that the applicant included with his application to the Board. Although documents associated with the applicant’s administrative separation were not in records available to the Board, his separation document indicates that he was discharged “under conditions other than honorable” on 16 December 1978, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board to have his discharge upgraded.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022260

    Original file (20100022260.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 October 1978, the applicant was notified of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct. On 30 October 1978, the separation authority approved the discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and directed the applicant receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Based on his record of indiscipline which includes several instances of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088668C070403

    Original file (2003088668C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was convicted on 22 January 1976 and sentenced to 3 years' confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections (TDC). On 3 September 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's appeal for an upgrade of discharge. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016751

    Original file (20070016751.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of separation shows he completed 2 years, 2 months, and 9 days of active military service. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of his discharge shows that he was discharged for the good of the service with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. e. Evidence of record shows that the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007007

    Original file (20070007007.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 6 April 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive an Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. There is no evidence in the applicant's record that he was undergoing any medical condition during his military service or that he underwent...