Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015480
Original file (20060015480.txt) Auto-classification: Denied


RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  31 May 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060015480 


	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

Mr. Michael J. Fowler

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Crain, William

Chairperson

Mr. Lewy, Donald

Member

Mr. Venable, Roland

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 correction of his military records to remove prisoner status.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was not a prisoner at the time he was shot in the leg on 31 August 1971 and that there where no charges against him nor a record of him making an escape.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of this case.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which occurred on 10 April 1973.  The application submitted in this case is dated 27 October 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 in the Regular Army on 16 January 1970 and successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 91A (Medical Corpsman).

4.  On 2 June 1970, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for breaking restriction.

5.  On 20 August 1970, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to be at his appointed place of duty.

6.  The applicant arrived in Vietnam and was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3rd Battalion, 506th Infantry on or about 13 January 1971.  



7.  On 4 February 1971, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for wrongful possession of marijuana.
	
8.  On 31 March 1971, the applicant was convicted, contrary to his pleas, by a special court-martial of disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer.  His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for four months, confinement at hard labor for four months, and reduction to the rank of 
Private/E-1.  Confinement at hard labor for four months was suspended by the convening authority.

9.  On 6 June 1971, the applicant was convicted, pursuant to his pleas, by a special court-martial of missing a movement and disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer.  His sentence consisted of restriction to the company area and extra duty for 30 days.

10.  The applicant's records contain Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division Support Command (Airmobile) Special Court-Martial Order Number 56, dated
5 August 1971, that vacated suspension of the unserved portion of 4 months confinement at hard labor (from his 31 March 1971 court-martial).

11.  A DD Form 261 (Report of Investigation Line of Duty and Misconduct Status), dated 31 August 1971, shows that on 10 August 1971 the applicant was put into the custody of the Charge of Quarters (CQ) and he was to be guarded and escorted the next day to the U.S. Army Republic of Vietnam Installation Stockade.  At or about 0400 hours on 11 August 1971, the applicant attempted to escape.  

12.  The document shows that after giving verbal warning and then firing warning shots over the applicant head the CQ tried to stop the applicant by shooting at his legs and did in fact stop him by wounding him in the right leg.  The document further shows that the investigating officer found that the applicant's injury was not in the line of duty-due to own misconduct.

13. The applicant departed Vietnam on or about 30 August 1971. 

14.  The applicant's records show that he was absent without leave (AWOL) from 24 March 1972 through 26 March 1972.

15.  On 23 April 1972, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to be at his appointed place of duty.

16.  On 7 July 1972, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to be at his appointed place of duty.
17.  On 2 August 1972, the applicant was barred from reenlistment for unsatisfactory efficiency and conduct.

18.  The applicant's records show that he was AWOL from 14 August 1972 through 21 August 1972 and from 25 October 1972 through 5 November 1972.

19.  On 13 November 1972, the applicant was convicted, pursuant to his pleas, by a special court-martial of having in his possession 1.23 grams more or less of heroin.  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for two months.

20.  The applicant's records show that he was AWOL from 4 April 1973 through
9 April 1973.

21.  On 10 April 1973, the applicant was honorably released from active duty upon his expiration of term of service in the rank of Private PVT/E-1 after completing 3 years of creditable active service with 115 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he was not a prisoner at the time he was shot in the leg on 31 August 1971 and that there where no charges against him nor a record of him making an escape.  Evidence of record shows he was convicted by three special court-martials.  The first court-martial shows the convening authority suspended the sentence of confinement at hard labor for four months.  However, when the applicant received his second court-martial the convening authority vacated the sentence of confinement at hard labor for four months.

2.  A report of investigation shows that the applicant was placed in the custody of a CQ to be escorted to the U.S. Army Republic of Vietnam Installation Stockade to serve his confinement at hard labor for four months.  While in custody of the CQ he tried to escape and after receiving several warnings he was shot in the right leg.  Therefore, there are no grounds for his contentions that he was not a prisoner or that there was no record of escape.  

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 10 April 1973; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 9 April 1976.  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

__WC___  ___DL __  __RV  ___  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.




__        _ William F. Crain ___
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060015480
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
31 MAY 2007
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
MR. SCHWARTZ
ISSUES         1.
110.0000.0000
2.
134.0000.0000
3.

4.

5.

6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014000

    Original file (20090014000.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 January 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090014000 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 13 November 1970, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being AWOL from 9 November to 13 November 1970. There is no evidence in the available records to show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100415C070208

    Original file (2004100415C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 24 March 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an undesirable discharge. The applicant’s record of service included a bar to reenlistment, five nonjudicial punishments, two special court-martial convictions and 239 days of lost time.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | AR20140010711

    Original file (AR20140010711.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 January 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140010711 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. He also cited the applicant's testimony that he had been wounded in Vietnam and had received the PH. General orders awarded him the ARCOM; however, the orders were issued in Vietnam after he had been found guilty of being AWOL in CONUS by a special court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076790C070215

    Original file (2002076790C070215.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. On 25 March 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board, in an unanimous opinion, denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. There is no evidence, nor...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021945

    Original file (20120021945.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 July 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120021945 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Special Court-Martial Order Number 54, Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division, Fort Ord, dated 21 July 1976, shows the sentence to a bad conduct discharge, a forfeiture of $240 pay for 4 months (forfeitures to apply to pay becoming due on or after the date of the convening authority's action), and reduction to the grade of private/E-1, adjudged on 9 October 1975, as promulgated...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088346C070403

    Original file (2003088346C070403.rtf) 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. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 3 November 1977...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088755C070403

    Original file (2003088755C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 September 1969, 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. On 2 October 1969, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 8 October 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027051

    Original file (20100027051.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 January 1974, the convening authority ordered the bad conduct discharge to be executed. He was discharged with a bad conduct discharge on 11 March 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11, as a result of court-martial. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge or an honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002922C070208

    Original file (20040002922C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 11 February 1971. 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090205C070212

    Original file (2003090205C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), confinement at hard labor for 1 year, a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of all pay and allowances. On 17 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) dispatched a letter to the applicant informing him that his discharge had been upgraded to a general discharge under the SDRP. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.