Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012779C071029
Original file (20060012779C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:       27 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012779


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Kenneth L. Wright             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Chester A. Damian             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine I. Fields           |     |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 (UOTHC) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable
conditions.

2.  The applicant states that at the time his personal situation was
serious.   He made an error in judgment.  He was young and he was wrong.
His service prior to going absent without leave (AWOL) was great.  His
mother was dying of cancer and no one was home to take care of her.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 27 August 1987.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 22 August 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 was born on 14 August 1962.  He enlisted in the Regular
Army on 20 April 1982.  (His DD Form 214 erroneously shows his component as
U. S. Army Reserve.)  He completed basic training and advanced individual
training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (Food Service
Specialist).  He was promoted to Specialist Four, E-4 on 1 March 1984.

4.  The applicant departed AWOL on 13 July 1984.  He returned to military
control on 2 July 1987.  In July 1987, charges were preferred against him
for this AWOL.

5.  In an interview on 7 July 1987, the applicant stated he was having
personal problems at home.  His mother was not a healthy woman.  He tried
to communicate with his chain of command and his mess sergeant, but no one
listened.

6.  On 8 July 1987, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant
voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge UOTHC and
that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration
benefits.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  On 11 August 1987, the appropriate authority approved the request and
directed the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

8.  On 27 August 1987, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC,
in pay grade E-1, 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
completed       2 years, 4 months, and 10 days of creditable active service
and had 1,083 days of lost time.

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.
A discharge UOTHC 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.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu
of trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance
with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was
made under coercion or duress.

2.  The applicant’s contentions and his prior good service have been
carefully considered; however, considering the length of his AWOL they
provide an insufficient basis on which to grant the relief requested.
3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 27 August 1987; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on         26 August 1990.  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

__klw____  __cad___  __eif___  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.




                                  __Kenneth L. Wright___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060012779                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070327                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19870827                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, ch 10                       |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A70.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011220

    Original file (20060011220.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also states that he believes his discharge should be upgraded for the following reasons: (1) his record of promotions show he was generally a good service member; (2) he received awards and decorations in his enlistment; and (3) he had a prior honorable discharge. There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant requested a hardship discharge prior to his discharge. Good post-service conduct alone is normally not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011005

    Original file (20100011005.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 November 1987, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed he be issued a UOTHC Discharge Certificate. The applicant indicated in the statement submitted with his request for discharge that his mother's illness, his siblings, and other family problems contributed to him going AWOL. The applicant states it has been 20 plus years since his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016603C071029

    Original file (20060016603C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 25 April 1990, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084166C070212

    Original file (2003084166C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The regulation, as in effect at the time, stated that a service member had the right to a hearing before a board of officers only if they had six or more years of service. While the applicant has outlined his contentions, what he considers as violations of his rights, and submits documents showing that his mother suffered from mental illness while he was on active duty,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012081C071029

    Original file (20060012081C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant upon his discharge confirms he completed 4 months and 18 days of creditable active military service, and had accrued 64 days of time lost due to AWOL. On 10 March 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. The evidence of record further shows that after being AWOL for 64 days, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a court-martial that could have resulted in...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100030555

    Original file (20100030555.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. However, his service record shows he received one Article 15 for 15 days of AWOL and was charged with being AWOL for over 1,000 days.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012709

    Original file (20060012709.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. She had completed 2 years, 7 months, and 6 days of active military service during the period under review. As a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error injustice to this Board expired on 9 December 1999.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014967C071029

    Original file (20060014967C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078214C070215

    Original file (2002078214C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: On 11 July 1990, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant’s case and it determined that his discharge was proper and equitable. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000005

    Original file (20070000005.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge.