Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070019041
Original file (20070019041.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       13 August 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070019041 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he lied over a speeding ticket and the offense he committed was perjury over a misdemeanor.  This was during the Vietnam conflict which he just came back from.  The incident occurred in a college town and he was singled out because of being a war veteran.  The applicant further states since his discharge he has raised his children to believe in the military, with one serving in Desert Storm.  Another child is serving in Iraqi Freedom and one is going to Iraq next month.  This request is for them.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 September 1965 and successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 05B (Radio Operator).

3.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 18 May 1966 through 22 May 1966.

4.  The applicant arrived in Vietnam and was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division on or about 21 June 1966.   

5.  On 28 November 1966, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to be at his appointed place of duty.

6.  On 16 December 1966, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to be at his appointed place of duty.

7.  On 27 May 1967, the applicant was convicted, contrary to his pleas, by a special court-martial of two specifications of disobeying a lawful order from superior commissioned officers and breaking restriction to the company limits.  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for six months, forfeiture of $64.00 per month for six months, and reduction to the grade of Private (PVT)/
E-1.

8.  The applicant departed Vietnam on or about 5 November 1967.

9.  On 12 March 1968, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to be at his appointed place of duty.

10.  On 11 July 1968, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for two specifications of failing to be at his appointed place of duty, disobeying a lawful order, and being AWOL on 6 July 1968.

11.  On 22 July 1968, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for breaking restriction to the company limits.



12.  On 11 September 1968, the applicant was convicted, pursuant to his pleas, by a special court-martial of five specifications of failing to be at his appointed place of duty, for being AWOL during the period 2 August 1968 through 
15 August 1968, and failing to obey a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer.  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for two months, forfeiture of $64.00 per month for three months, and reduction to the grade of PVT/E-1.

13.  On 8 October 1968, the applicant was apprehended by Riley County, Kansas civil authorities and was charged with perjury.  On 15 October 1968, the applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to confinement at hard labor (civilian authority) not to exceed seven months in the Kansas State Industrial Reformatory at Hutchinson, Kansas. 

14.  On 25 April 1969, the applicant was advised by registered mail by his company commander that he was initiating a request to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206.  He was advised that he could request appointment of military counsel to represent him and, in his absence, represent his case before a board of officers.  He was also advised that he may submit statements in his own behalf or waive the foregoing rights in writing.  The applicant indicated that he waived appointment of military counsel; he waived consideration of his case by a board of officers; he did not desire to provide a statement in his own behalf, and he did not intend to appeal his conviction.   

15.  On 22 August 1969, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206.  The commander based the reason on the applicant's conviction by civil court.

16.  On 5 September 1969, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation to administratively separate the applicant and directed he receive an undesirable discharge and that he be reduced to the lowest grade under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for civil conviction.  On 
14 October 1969, he was separated after completing 2 years, 6 months, and 
9 days of creditable active service with 584 days lost due to AWOL and confinement.

17.  Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at that time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for conviction by civil court.  Paragraph 33 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that Soldiers convicted by civil authorities would be considered for separation.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

18.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  

19.  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 records show that he received five Article 15s, he was convicted by two special courts-martial, he was AWOL on three occasions, and had two instances of military confinement and one civil confinement during his enlistment.  The applicant had completed 2 years, 6 months, 9 days of creditable active service with 584 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  Based on these facts, the applicant’s service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel which are required for issuance of a general or honorable discharge.

2.  Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time. 

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___xx___  ___xx___  __xx____  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.



      ______________________
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20070019041



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20070019041



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019762

    Original file (20100019762.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 February 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100019762 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On an unknown date, the applicant's chain of command recommended the applicant be discharged by reason of unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability), then in effect. On 10 March 1976, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076434C070215

    Original file (2002076434C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001681

    Original file (20090001681.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 May 1971, the applicant's intermediate commander recommended approval of the applicant's discharge, with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, and remarked that the applicant's sentence to confinement for not less than 25 years warranted his discharge from the Army. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013059

    Original file (20130013059.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The court sentenced him to 4 years of confinement in the State Penitentiary (suspended) and placed him on probation for 4 years. He was sentenced to 4 years of confinement in the State Penitentiary (suspended) and placed on probation for 4 years.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054676C070420

    Original file (2001054676C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 5 July 1967, the applicant’s chain of command was requested to provide comments and recommendations as to whether to retain the applicant in the military or to discharge him under the provisions of paragraph...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021815

    Original file (20110021815.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He pled guilty and was found guilty of: * being AWOL from on or about 11 December 1968 to on or about 8 January 1969 * being AWOL from on or about 19 January 1969 to on or about 11 March 1969 b. c. An individual discharged for conviction by a civil court normally would be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, however, an honorable or General Discharge Certificate could be furnished if the individual being discharged had been awarded a personal decoration, or if warranted by the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003069

    Original file (20120003069.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 July 1969, the applicant's immediate commander forwarded him a letter notifying him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Misconduct (Fraudulent Entry, Conviction by Civil Court, and Absence Without Leave or Desertion)) by reason of conviction by a civil court, with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, by...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021803

    Original file (20120021803.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 February 1969, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to civil conviction, and directed that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant's medical records were not available for review and there are no documents contained in his military personnel record which would indicate the applicant suffered from PTSD or any other mental health condition during his period of service....

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002230

    Original file (20110002230.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 5 September 1969, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Misconduct) due to his conviction by civil authorities. After reviewing all of the evidence presented, as well as the evidence of record, the board of officers unanimously recommended that the applicant be discharged because of misconduct (conviction by civil court) and issued an...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007686C070208

    Original file (20040007686C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    After conducting a hearing and considering the evidence presented, the board of officers found the applicant should be eliminated from service with an UD. On 10 December 1969, the Army Discharge Review Board, after carefully considering the applicant’s case, concluded that his discharge was proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his request to upgrade his discharge. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15...