Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | AR20070009079C071029
Original file (AR20070009079C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        27 September 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070009079


      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. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Chester A. Damian             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Edward E. Montgomery          |     |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 undesirable discharge be
upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he needs his discharge upgraded to obtain
benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  He states that he
had almost 2 years of service and that he "kinda lost it" when his aunt
died.

3.  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.  On 27 June 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Army in Houston, Texas,
for 3 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his
training as a light weapons infantryman.  He was promoted to the pay grade
of E-2 on 27 October 1972.

3.  Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on
19 March 1973, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 5 March until 14
March 1973. His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade (suspended
for 60 days) and a forfeiture of pay in the amount of $35.00 per month for
2 months.

4.  On 13 October 1973, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failing
to obey a lawful order and for being AWOL from 11 October until 12 October
1973.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture
of pay in the amount of $83.00, and restriction for 14 days.


5.  The applicant was convicted by a special court-martial on 20 December
1973, of being AWOL from 2 November until 6 December 1973.  His sentence
consisted of a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay in the amount
of $150.00 per month for 2 months.

6.  The applicant’s record shows that he was counseled on 18 separate
occasions between 29 December 1973 and 5 February 1974, for his acts of
misconduct which included an infraction of improper display; an infraction
of failure to shave; failure to follow instructions; failure to secure his
wall locker; failure to prepare for inspection; talking while marching;
refusal to police an area while on detail; sleeping in class; being out of
uniform; and disobeying a lawful order.

7.  On 21 February 1974, the applicant was notified that he was being
recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 13, for unfitness, due to frequent incidents of a discreditable
nature.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting
with counsel, he waived his rights submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
26 February 1974 and he directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
Accordingly, on 1 March 1974, the applicant was discharged under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness, due to
frequent incidents of a discreditable nature.  He had completed 1 year, 4
months, and 18 days of total active service and he was furnished an
Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

9.  On 23 May 1984 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's
petition to upgrade his discharge.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and
outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unfitness.  Specific
categories included minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement
in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military
authorities, and commission of a serious offense.  An undesirable discharge
was normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  However, his contentions
are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief requested.  The
evidence of record shows that the applicant was convicted by a special
court-martial; that he had NJP imposed against him twice; and that he was
counseled on approximately
18 separate occasions while he was in the Army.  Considering his numerous
acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that the type of discharge that he
received is too harsh.

4.  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.

5.  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

__RTD___  __CAD__  __EEM__  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.




                                  ___Richard T. Dunbar____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070009079                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070927                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  583  |144.5000/UNFITNESS                      |
|2.  592                 |144.5100/FREQ INVOLV W/MILITARY AUTH    |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080332C070215

    Original file (2002080332C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 26 January 1976, the applicant's commander advised the applicant of his rights and preferred charges against him for the AWOL offense. There is no evidence in the available records 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051945C070420

    Original file (2001051945C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 30 August 1974 and he remained AWOL until he surrendered to civil authorities and was returned to his unit on 19 September 1974.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008804C070206

    Original file (20050008804C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 November 1972, while serving in the pay grade of E-4, he reenlisted for a period of 3 years and assignment to Fort Meade, Maryland. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075118C070403

    Original file (2002075118C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 2 November 1972, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 6 June 1977, for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000487

    Original file (20090000487.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant's record of service included numerous adverse counseling statements, a bar to reenlistment, four nonjudicial punishments, and 3 days of lost time. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge or a general discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075160C070403

    Original file (2002075160C070403.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. There is no evidence of record that shows 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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008362

    Original file (20090008362.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that he was only 17 years old at the time of his enlistment and that he was 19 years old at the time of his discharge. The applicant submits two Letters of Commendation dated 14 May 1973. Considering the nature of his court-martial offenses and his overall record of service, it does not appear that his undesirable discharge is too severe.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014440

    Original file (20080014440.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness or unsuitability. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable or a general discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072065C070403

    Original file (2002072065C070403.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: On 24 January 1974, the commander submitted the recommendation for discharge and indicated that the applicant had been a total failure as a soldier.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003555

    Original file (20090003555.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged on 16 October 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness – frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities – with issuance of an undesirable discharge characterized as under other than honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the...