Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | AR20070008881C071029
Original file (AR20070008881C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        23 October 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070008881


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William Blakely               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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, in effect, that his discharge under other than
honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he applied for a discharge under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, so that he could pursue
a new career in the aerospace industry.  He states that his commanding
officer (CO) considered his request to be an admission of guilt; therefore,
he was busted down to the pay grade of E-1, with forfeiture of all pay and
allowances.  He states that the whole issue seemed like a travesty and that
he was told by his counsel that if he requested a discharge under chapter
10, the most that he would receive was a slap on the wrist because of his
outstanding record.  He states that he was shocked when he was given his
final discharge and that he even mentioned to his CO that if he had known
that he was going to receive the type of discharge that he received, he
would have continued the court-martial proceedings.  He states that he was
told that he had no recourse but to "sign and get out."  He states that he
had only 72 hours to clear his quarters and to leave.

3.  The applicant states that as he gets older, he continues to be haunted
by this episode of his youth.  He states that the more medical issues that
he has, the more he considers how much time that he has left.  He concludes
by stating that all he would really like is to have his discharge changed
to reflect all of the contributions that he made during his tenure.

4.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his
application.

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.  After completing 3 years and 8 months of net active service (honorable)
in the Regular Army (RA), the applicant reenlisted in the RA on 24 February
1977, for 4 years, in the pay grade of E-4.  He was awarded an image
interpreter military occupational specialty.

3.  The applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 12 October 1977
and he extended his enlistment for 10 months on 4 December 1978.  He was
promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 6 June 1981.  The applicant reenlisted
in the RA for 6 years on 11 December 1981.

4.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are
not on file.  The Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD
Form 214) indicates that the applicant was discharged on 10 December 1982,
under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of
the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 9 years, 5
months, and 17 days of net active service and he was furnished a discharge
under other than honorable conditions.

5.  A review of the available records fail to show that the applicant ever
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge
within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

6.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy this requirement.

2.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are
not on file.  However, the available records show that he was discharged
under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
3.  There is no evidence in the available records, nor has the applicant
submitted any evidence to support his contentions that he was misinformed
by his counsel; that there was a travesty of justice concerning his
discharge process; or that he was informed that he had no other recourse.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that what
the Army did in his case was correct.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

__          _  __          _  _ _       __  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__HOF__  __WB     _  __MJF__  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.





                                  _____Hubert O. Fry, Jr.____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070008881                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20071023                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  360  |144.0000/ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE       |
|2.  689                 |144.7000/FOR THE GOOD OF THE SERVICE    |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021314

    Original file (20120021314.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 2 July 1979, the senior commander - a general officer - reviewed the charges and opined that discharging the applicant would be in the best interest of the Army. On 5 July 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by a court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024321

    Original file (20110024321.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions. On 9 June 1977, he voluntarily submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service. The characterization of service for this type of discharge was normally under other than honorable conditions and the evidence shows he was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | AR20060015533C071029

    Original file (AR20060015533C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 31 May 1977, the applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) in Montgomery, Alabama, for 6 years, in the pay grade of E- 1. However, the available records do show that on 20 May 1982, the applicant submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. There is no evidence in the available records nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to support his contention...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000767

    Original file (20130000767.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge. 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. On 1 February 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007844

    Original file (20130007844.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge. On 20 November 1980, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial. Discharge actions processed under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085486C070212

    Original file (2003085486C070212.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. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that his discharge was inequitable and granted him relief in the form of an upgrade of his characterization of service to fully honorable and a change to the narrative reason for his discharge to Secretarial Authority. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001804

    Original file (20090001804.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable, general, or medical discharge and that his narrative reason for separation be changed to show that he was discharged by reason of physical disability. Accordingly, on 8 September 1978, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program. The evidence of records indicates that the applicant...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010157

    Original file (20140010157.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he entered active duty this period on 2 March 1979 and he was discharged on 10 February 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded because he served honorably in the RA from 1972 to 1981 and he had a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007257

    Original file (20090007257.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 28 March 1978 and directed the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The fact that he was 17 years old at the time of his enlistment is not a basis for upgrading his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007245

    Original file (20140007245.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to a general discharge. A discharge under other than honorable conditions would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.