RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 24 April 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080001317
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 that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that at the time he was in error, but due to his immaturity, he now realizes that he made a very big mistake about his action. The applicant apologizes for his choices as a young person.
3. The applicant provides a self-authored letter and three letters of support.
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 applicants record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army on
28 November 1986. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman). The highest grade he attained was pay grade E-3.
3. On 30 August 1988, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 16 to 29 August 1988, for the wrongful use of marijuana and cocaine between 12 and 22 July 1988 and for breaking restriction.
4. On 7 September 1988, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the effects of a discharge under conditions other than honorable and of the rights available to him. The applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, the request was made of his own free will and he was not coerced into making the request. The applicant understood that by submitting the request for discharge, he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges against him. He also acknowledged that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. He further acknowledged he understood that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
5. On 15 September 1988, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and that he be issued a UOTHC Discharge Certificate.
6. On 29 September 1988, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10 (for the good of the service In lieu of court-martial). The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued confirms he completed 1 years, 9 months, and 18 days of creditable active military service and accrued 13 days of time lost.
7. 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, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. An UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicants contentions were carefully considered and found to be insufficient in merit.
2. The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion, duress or that his rights were violated in any way. Further, the applicant acknowledged in a signed statement that he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits administered by the VA, and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. He also acknowledged he understood that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
3. The evidence of record confirms the applicants separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. All requirements of law and regulation were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of short and undistinguished service.
4. Records show that the applicant was only 21 years of age at the time of his offenses. However, there is no evidence that indicates that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.
5. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants request.
6. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, 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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
____x____ ____x____ __x____ 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.
__________x____________
CHAIRPERSON
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080001317
2
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
1901 SOUTH BELL STREET 2ND FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22202-4508
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010211
On 14 June 1988, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he receive a UOTHC discharge. The DD Form 214 that was issued to the applicant shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial and that he received a UOTHC discharge. There is no evidence showing the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016357
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate. There is insufficient substantive evidence on which to base a discharge upgrade in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100017292
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 29 January 1988, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service-in lieu of court-martial, and directed that he be issued a UOTHC Discharge Certificate. _______ _ 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 | CY2014 | 20140008605
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to a general discharge (GD). On 29 January 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed his discharge UOTHC. _________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 | CY2012 | 20120006707
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant provided a self-authored statement in which he states at the time of his enlistment, his recruiter, SSG J____B___, told him not to say anything about his medical history. On 14 April 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 and directed a UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018239
The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. The discharge authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed he receive a UOTHC discharge. b. Paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014013
On 21 December 1988, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10 (for the good of the service In lieu of court-martial). Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. However, by regulation, the RE-4 code assigned to the applicant was the proper code to assign members separating under the provisions of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020877
Following counseling, the applicant submitted a voluntary written request for discharge 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. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant provides a letter of inquiry indicating that: * Between 2005...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006255
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge (GD), under honorable conditions. On 28 September 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed he receive an UOTHC discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011179
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to a general discharge (GD). After consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. a. ___________X___________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for...