Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017041C071029
Original file (20060017041C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 May 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060017041


      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. Hubert O. Fry                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy       |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James R. Hastie               |     |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 be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states the Army changed his military occupational
specialty (MOS) from 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman) to 11E (Armor Crewman)
for no just cause.  Unfortunately, that resulted in his losing faith in the
Army.  He was looking forward to serving as an 11B in Vietnam, but the Army
sent him to Fort Knox, KY as a tanker.  He made a mistake as a youth.  He
desperately wanted to serve his country honorably.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United
States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 18 March 1971.  The application submitted in this case is dated
28 November 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 26 September 1948.  He enlisted in the
Regular Army on 23 September 1968 for no specific enlistment option except
“Regular Army.”

4.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted
Qualification Record) shows he completed basic combat training at Fort
Jackson, SC.  His DA Form 20 shows that he was apparently scheduled to
begin advanced individual training or on-the-job training in MOS 76A
(Supply Clerk) at Fort Jackson.  Special court-martial orders show he
departed absent without leave (AWOL) from Company A, 6th Battalion, 2d
Basic Combat Training Brigade, U. S. Army Training Center, Infantry, Fort
Jackson, SC on 5 March 1969.

5.  A DD Form 616 (Report of Return of Absentee/Escaped Prisoner Sentenced
to Discharge/and/or Request for All Personnel Records), dated 18 March
1969, indicates the applicant had been returned to military control in
Wilmington, OH and was assigned or attached to the U. S. Army Special
Processing Detachment, Fort Knox, KY (apparently because it was the nearest
Army installation to Wilmington, OH).

6.  On 16 May 1969, the applicant convicted by a special court-martial,
pursuant with his pleas, of being AWOL from on or about 5 to on or about 7
March 1969, from on or about 20 to on or about 22 March 1969, and from on
or about 4 to on or about 14 April 1969.  His approved punishment was to be
confined at hard labor for 3 months and to forfeit $73.00 pay per month for
3 months.  On 29 May 1969, the unexecuted portion of the sentence to
confinement at hard labor was suspended for 3 months.

7.  On or about 3 June 1969, the applicant was assigned to Company C, 5th
Battalion, 33d Armor, Fort Knox, KY.

8.  On 22 July 1969, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order
to police the platoon area.

9.  On 22 January 1970, the applicant was convicted, pursuant with his
plea,     by a special court-martial of being AWOL from on or about 4 to on
or about       25 November 1969.  His approved sentence was to be confined
at hard labor for 3 months, to forfeit $50.00 pay per month for 3 months,
and to be reduced to pay grade E-1.

10.  On 27 January 1971, the applicant was convicted, contrary to his plea,
of being AWOL from on or about 5 February to on or about 24 November 1970.
His approved sentence was to be confined at hard labor for 6 months and to
forfeit $80.00 pay per month for 6 months.

11.  The applicant’s discharge packet is not available.

12.  On 18 March 1971, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge
characterized as under other than honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1,
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  He had
completed       1 year, 1 month, and 25 days of creditable active service
and had 301 days of lost time (AWOL and confinement) prior to his normal
expiration of term of service and 185 days lost subsequent to his normal
expiration of term of service.

13.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation
provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of
a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, sexual
perversion, drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-
forming drugs or marijuana, an established pattern for shirking, an
established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts or
failure to contribute adequate support to dependents, were subject to
separation for unfitness.  Such action would be taken when it was clearly
established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him as a
satisfactory Soldier further effort was unlikely to succeed.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel.
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 contends the Army changed his MOS from 11B to 11E for no
just cause and that resulted in his losing faith in the Army.

2.  However, there is no evidence of record to show the applicant was ever
promised training as an 11B or ever started training as an 11B.  The
evidence of record does show that he departed AWOL while he was still
assigned to the U. S. Army Training Center, Infantry, Fort Jackson, SC.  It
appears he was only assigned to Fort Knox, KY (the U. S. Army Armor Center)
because it was the nearest Army installation from where he had been
returned to military control after his first AWOL.

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the
applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with
applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would
tend to jeopardize his rights.  Considering his record of numerous AWOLs,
the last one for a lengthy period of service, the characterization of his
discharge as under other than honorable conditions was and still is
appropriate.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 18 March 1971; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on         17 March 1974.  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

__hof___  __teo___  __jrh___  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.




                                  __Hubert O. Fry_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060017041                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070522                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19710318                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A51.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011165

    Original file (20090011165.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) be upgraded to honorable. On 18 June 1971, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000399C070208

    Original file (20040000399C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he was not absent without leave (AWOL) for 399 days and that he served at least 19 months of overseas service. On 9 April 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from on or about 6 December 1968 to on or about 15 February 1969. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely file.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083983C070212

    Original file (2003083983C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant went AWOL while assigned to the MHC. He had completed 1 year, 2 months, and 4 days of active military service and he had 328 days of lost time due to being AWOL and in military confinement. There is no evidence the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge under that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000719

    Original file (20080000719.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 April 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080000719 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 states, in effect, that he went absent without leave (AWOL) due to family problems. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008447C071029

    Original file (20070008447C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A review of the applicant's records indicates he did complete basic combat and advanced individual training however, in the relatively short span of his Army service, which spanned 6 months and 22 days...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005966

    Original file (20090005966.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that on 1 November 1971, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service, with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. ___________x___________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005130C070205

    Original file (20060005130C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 19 January 1970 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. There is no indication in the available records that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations. As a result, there is no basis for granting the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075430C070403

    Original file (2002075430C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The sentence was adjudged on 5 December 1969 but on 9 December, so much of the sentence which provided for confinement was suspended for 3 months. On 22 December 1969, the applicant was reassigned back to Fort Hood and while he was pending assignment to a unit at Fort Hood, he again absented himself without proper authority from the 502 nd Adjutant General Replacement Company on 28 December 1969, and remained AWOL until he was...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000085

    Original file (20150000085.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 November 1968, his chain of command recommended his discharge from the military under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness with an undesirable discharge. b. 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004126C070208

    Original file (20040004126C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Larry Olson | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant requests that his records be corrected to reflect award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm and that his March 1971 general discharge be upgraded to fully honorable. Such conduct is evidence that the applicant continued to be able to serve honorably following his return from Vietnam and that may have contributed to his...