RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 1 May 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080000028
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.
Director
Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Chairperson
Member
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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states that he was young and naïve, that he went absent without leave (AWOL) because of personal problems (his fiancé cheated on him), and that he is now a good citizen.
3. The applicant provides no additional evidence 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 applicants 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 applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant was born on 5 February 1960. He enlisted on 3 April 1979 for a period of 3 years. He successfully completed basic training.
3. Records show the applicant was AWOL from 1 August 1979 to 23 October 1979.
4. The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants discharge are not contained in the available records. However, the applicants DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 18 December 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial. He had served a total of 5 months and 22 days of creditable active service with 84 days of lost time due to AWOL.
5. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 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.
7. 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 members 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.
8. 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 Soldiers separation specifically allows such characterization.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence of record does not support the applicants contention that he has a general discharge. Evidence of record shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions.
2. Age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor. The applicant was 19 years old when he enlisted and he successfully completed basic training.
3. There is no evidence the applicant sought assistance from his chain of command or chaplain on a way to resolve his problems within established Army procedures prior to going AWOL.
4. Good post service conduct alone is normally not a basis for upgrading a discharge.
5. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicants separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Without having the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate with his overall record of service. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
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.
___ XXX _______
CHAIRPERSON
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080000028
4
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
1901 SOUTH BELL STREET 2ND FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22202-4508
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017023
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged from active duty on 10 February 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with an UOTHC discharge. There is no evidence of record which indicates the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust, therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010934
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant was discharged from active duty on 16 November 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001649
In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a discharge under other honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of a court-martial with a character of service of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000113
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. The appropriate authority approved his request for discharge with the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017947
The complete charge sheet or the facts and circumstances pertaining to his discharge proceedings in lieu of a trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), are not contained in his available military records. Likewise, there is no evidence to show that there was a breach in his reenlistment contract due to the course length for 91C being changed and that his JAG attorney advised him to go AWOL. ABCMR Record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019455
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He also requests correction of his records to show that he was discharged for medical reasons. _______ _ x _______ ___ 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010801C080213
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He stated that if returned to duty he would again go AWOL. __Richard T. Dunbar___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070010801 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20071220 TYPE OF DISCHARGE UOTHC DATE OF DISCHARGE 19790509 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200, ch 10 DISCHARGE REASON A70.00 BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY Ms. Mitrano ISSUES 1.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012341
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 12 March 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed he be issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012019
On 21 June 1979, during an interview, the applicant stated that he went AWOL because his father had been terminally ill for some time and that he had been denied a hardship discharge and a compassionate reassignment. On 28 July 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicants request for a discharge upgrade. The evidence of record does not support the applicants contentions that he took extended leave from January 1979 through June 1979 and that he went AWOL from June...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016367
There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.