Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005191
Original file (20080005191.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

	IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  29 May 2008

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080005191 


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, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he feels he served his country well and should be given the benefits that go with an honorable discharge.  He further states that he is in need of medical treatment.

3.  The applicant provides no supporting documentation.

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 7 June 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B1O (Infantryman).

3.  On 13 October 1978, the applicant was assigned duty as a security guard with the 1st Battalion, 81st Field Artillery Regiment, in the Federal Republic of Germany.

4.  On 29 February 1980, the applicant was promoted to specialist four, pay grade E-4.

5.  On 2 March 1981, charges were preferred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for violation of Article 91, assault (two specifications) on a noncommissioned officer, and for violation of Article 134, communicating a threat (three specifications).

6.  On 13 April 1981, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. 

7.  In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or to a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further acknowledged he understood 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.   

8.  On 20 April 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  On 6 May 1981, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He had completed a total of 2 years and 11 months of creditable active military service. 

9.  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.


10.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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 trail by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

11.  The Manual for Courts-Martial provides for a maximum punishment of a punitive discharge and confinement for 3 years for violation of Article 91, assault on a noncommissioned officer.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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 or duress.

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

3.  The applicant has not provided any evidence or convincing argument substantiating his contention that the quality of his service warrants an upgrade of his discharge.

4.  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 the aforementioned 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

___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
      
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)                                         AR20080005191



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080005191



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008887

    Original file (20120008887.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 December 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued a UOTHC Discharge Certificate. On 29 November 1982, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant contends that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded to general because it was unjust.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005464

    Original file (20110005464.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge was considered appropriate at the time. His character of service is appropriate based on the facts of the case and his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000730

    Original file (20110000730.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 July 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed a total of 3 years and 2 months of creditable active service with no lost time. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016539

    Original file (20110016539.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the UCMJ, he could receive a discharge UOTHC which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, and he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a discharge UOTHC. In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him or to a lesser-included offense that also authorized the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004431

    Original file (20110004431.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 3 September 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the applicant receive a UOTHC discharge, and on 14 September 1981 the applicant was discharged accordingly. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017363

    Original file (20080017363.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. The record indicated that at the time of his separation, the applicant was properly counseled.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012685

    Original file (20100012685.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 May 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and the applicant was discharged accordingly. The applicant's request that his discharge should be upgraded was carefully considered and it was determined there is insufficient evidence to support this request. Although the applicant contends he was falsely recruited into the Army based on his educational level, his records...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040003420C070208

    Original file (20040003420C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Michael J. Flynn | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 9 March 1978, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge. On 14 April 1978, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013603

    Original file (20140013603.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. His service records show he was AWOL for a total of 824 days and court-martial charges were preferred.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080004568

    Original file (20080004568.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The record does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following five separate occasions for the offenses indicated: 30 August 1978 - for two specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time; 9 February 1979 - for...